6 ms·

> WhatsApp is a US company and... I always feel like many large US tech companies want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be a global company, they wa

by rmc 11y ago

> WhatsApp is a US company and... I always feel like many large US tech companies want to have their cake and eat it. They want to be a global company, they want to have 2 billion users, and are valued at having that many users. But when it comes to laws, suddenly they operate under US law alone. I wouldn't mind if they ignored all national laws, and acted like a true global company. But I'm not from the USA (or Brazil), and don't want to be under US law. If you want to operate only user US law, then why not constrain yourself to the US market? Only operate there?

rplnt 11y ago
> when it comes to laws, suddenly they operate under US law alone And when it comes to taxes...
- antr 11y ago
  ... and when it comes to taxes they operate under US law, meaning that if they repatriate any foreign profits, they will have to pay taxes. If they decide not to, like Apple has decided, they won't be liable for any tax payment.
mirimir 11y ago
That makes sense to me. But there really is no international law that's coherent and enforceable. It's a hard problem.
- ricksplat 11y ago
  I think given that, it is reasonable for local jurisdictions to act as they see fit.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    For everyone to act as they see fit, I believe.
    - ricksplat 11y ago
      You mean as a Freeman of the Land? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land As an ideological position it has some interesting points to make, but in a contemporary legal setting it's difficult to find footing. My personal position is informed by Hobbes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) ) in that we have to make compromise with our individual liberty to bring about a greater good. > "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
      - mirimir 11y ago
        Well, that's the Internet, isn't it? I mean this: https://anarplex.net/hosted/files/declarationseparation.html https://anarplex.net/hosted/files/declarationseparation.html
        ricksplat 11y ago
        Interesting. I think it boils down to a freeman argument though - you're basically issuing refutation of your implicit social contract. While the sentiment therein is laudable it is somewhat premature. Though one has a great deal of independence in the cyber realm one is can still run afoul of limitations of the real world and her laws (as demonstrated today in Brazil). I think cyberspace currently is best categorized as a distinct estate rather than realm in a similar vein to the press and the judiciary. Each functions with more or less autonomy but can occasionally be subjugated to the other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Estate
        mirimir 11y ago
        One can always be subjugated. By robbers. By terrorists. By ISPs. By governments. By whatever. So one does what one can to be left alone. And helps others following the path. But in meatspace, one blends in, doesn't attract attention. As in Vinge's True Names. Ultimately, authoritarian states may wither. Or not. But in the meantime, one can manage, under occupation.
rekshaw 11y ago
completely agree.
white-flame 11y ago
If it was a small company based out of Iceland, or South Africa, or Singapore, it would still be in the same legal situation. The company (assuming just a single incorporation presence) is under the laws of the country it's from, and Joe Random user from across the internet is internationally accessing it. National law cannot enforce anything on organizations not within the national jurisdiction, without international cooperation. However, they can (attempt to) stop their own citizens from accessing the international service.
- aedron 11y ago
  That is false, at least in the example of online retail. If you sell stuff to someone in another country, online or not, you are bound by the consumer protection laws of that country. So someone in Scandinavia has two years of warranty on a laptop bought on dell.com, vs. one year for an American making the same purchase. I don't think it makes a difference whether what you are offering is physical or not, your service is bound by the laws in whichever country the exchange takes place. Of course enforcement might be an issue, which is exactly why the Brazilian judge did what he did, when Whatsapp failed to abide by Brazilian law.
  - white-flame 10y ago
    Note that I only said "enforce". A country can claim whatever they want within their own borders, but cannot really enforce them across the border. Even with the laptop warranty case, if some small retailer from Country A shipped a laptop to Scandinavia, but didn't uphold a 2 year warranty, the Scandinavian governments would not be able to force the warranty to be upheld. They can make whatever local judgments they want, but none of them would touch Country A without international agreements in place.
simonh 11y ago
There's absolutely nothing special in this case because WhatsApp happens to be operating on the internet. Suppose they were a mail order company based in Brazil but serving customers internationally by post. If a US judge issued a court order in the US requiring the company to hand over business records stored on paper in Barzil, he would have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Brazilian law protecting the privacy of information stored in Brazil would prevail. there would be no controversy about this. The fact that WhatsApp's info is stored on servers rather than paper records is irrelevant. The jurisdiction in which the records reside applies. Although the fact that their servers don't even store the information requested anyway should be.
- rmc 11y ago
  > Suppose they were a mail order company based in Brazil but serving customers internationally by post. If a US judge issued a court order in the US requiring the company to hand over business records stored on paper in Barzil, he would have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Fair point. But to continue that analogy, the US judge is quite free to ban the commercial operation of that Brazilian company in the USA. Which is exactly what happens, and is happening here.
  - simonh 11y ago
    OK. So now you're banning a company for operating in your country, because they choose not to become criminals in their own jurisdiction. So why ban them for a day or two? What's that supposed to accomplish? Logically if this was the justification they would ban it permanently. Banning it temporarily is just playing spiteful games that isn't going to accomplish anything.

by rmc 11y ago

rplnt 11y ago

> when it comes to laws, suddenly they operate under US law alone And when it comes to taxes...

antr 11y ago
... and when it comes to taxes they operate under US law, meaning that if they repatriate any foreign profits, they will have to pay taxes. If they decide not to, like Apple has decided, they won't be liable for any tax payment.

mirimir 11y ago

That makes sense to me. But there really is no international law that's coherent and enforceable. It's a hard problem.

ricksplat 11y ago
I think given that, it is reasonable for local jurisdictions to act as they see fit.
- mirimir 11y ago
  For everyone to act as they see fit, I believe.
  - ricksplat 11y ago
    You mean as a Freeman of the Land? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land As an ideological position it has some interesting points to make, but in a contemporary legal setting it's difficult to find footing. My personal position is informed by Hobbes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) ) in that we have to make compromise with our individual liberty to bring about a greater good. > "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
    - mirimir 11y ago
      Well, that's the Internet, isn't it? I mean this: https://anarplex.net/hosted/files/declarationseparation.html https://anarplex.net/hosted/files/declarationseparation.html
      - ricksplat 11y ago
        Interesting. I think it boils down to a freeman argument though - you're basically issuing refutation of your implicit social contract. While the sentiment therein is laudable it is somewhat premature. Though one has a great deal of independence in the cyber realm one is can still run afoul of limitations of the real world and her laws (as demonstrated today in Brazil). I think cyberspace currently is best categorized as a distinct estate rather than realm in a similar vein to the press and the judiciary. Each functions with more or less autonomy but can occasionally be subjugated to the other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Estate
        mirimir 11y ago
        One can always be subjugated. By robbers. By terrorists. By ISPs. By governments. By whatever. So one does what one can to be left alone. And helps others following the path. But in meatspace, one blends in, doesn't attract attention. As in Vinge's True Names. Ultimately, authoritarian states may wither. Or not. But in the meantime, one can manage, under occupation.

rekshaw 11y ago

completely agree.

white-flame 11y ago

If it was a small company based out of Iceland, or South Africa, or Singapore, it would still be in the same legal situation. The company (assuming just a single incorporation presence) is under the laws of the country it's from, and Joe Random user from across the internet is internationally accessing it. National law cannot enforce anything on organizations not within the national jurisdiction, without international cooperation. However, they can (attempt to) stop their own citizens from accessing the international service.

aedron 11y ago
That is false, at least in the example of online retail. If you sell stuff to someone in another country, online or not, you are bound by the consumer protection laws of that country. So someone in Scandinavia has two years of warranty on a laptop bought on dell.com, vs. one year for an American making the same purchase. I don't think it makes a difference whether what you are offering is physical or not, your service is bound by the laws in whichever country the exchange takes place. Of course enforcement might be an issue, which is exactly why the Brazilian judge did what he did, when Whatsapp failed to abide by Brazilian law.
- white-flame 10y ago
  Note that I only said "enforce". A country can claim whatever they want within their own borders, but cannot really enforce them across the border. Even with the laptop warranty case, if some small retailer from Country A shipped a laptop to Scandinavia, but didn't uphold a 2 year warranty, the Scandinavian governments would not be able to force the warranty to be upheld. They can make whatever local judgments they want, but none of them would touch Country A without international agreements in place.

simonh 11y ago

There's absolutely nothing special in this case because WhatsApp happens to be operating on the internet. Suppose they were a mail order company based in Brazil but serving customers internationally by post. If a US judge issued a court order in the US requiring the company to hand over business records stored on paper in Barzil, he would have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Brazilian law protecting the privacy of information stored in Brazil would prevail. there would be no controversy about this. The fact that WhatsApp's info is stored on servers rather than paper records is irrelevant. The jurisdiction in which the records reside applies. Although the fact that their servers don't even store the information requested anyway should be.

rmc 11y ago
> Suppose they were a mail order company based in Brazil but serving customers internationally by post. If a US judge issued a court order in the US requiring the company to hand over business records stored on paper in Barzil, he would have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Fair point. But to continue that analogy, the US judge is quite free to ban the commercial operation of that Brazilian company in the USA. Which is exactly what happens, and is happening here.
- simonh 11y ago
  OK. So now you're banning a company for operating in your country, because they choose not to become criminals in their own jurisdiction. So why ban them for a day or two? What's that supposed to accomplish? Logically if this was the justification they would ban it permanently. Banning it temporarily is just playing spiteful games that isn't going to accomplish anything.