4 ms·

Do you mean that sovereignty grants that authority in principle, or in actuality? If the United States doesn't enforce the demands of another country with respe

by dsacco 9y ago

Do you mean that sovereignty grants that authority in principle, or in actuality? If the United States doesn't enforce the demands of another country with respect to a company in its borders, the company can freely ignore those demands. That various countries choose to have treaties enforcing the demands of others seems to be less about sovereignty and more about good relations. For example, Germany ordered Project Gutenberg to remove certain books from its servers or to make them unavailable to Germans. I maintain a full mirror of Project Gutenberg and I make the banned books available to Germans. If Germany sent me a personal letter demanding I cease and desist, I'd ignore it. If the United States demanded I cease and desist on Germany's behalf, I wouldn't ignore it. But the latter doesn't seem like "Germany's sovereignty" to me.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Do you mean that sovereignty grants that authority in principle, or in actuality? Yes, both. > If the United States doesn't enforce the demands of another country with respect to a company in its borders, the company can freely ignore those demands. The authority to legislate and the ability to impose consequences are two different things. It is, for instance, indisputable that the US has authority to criinalize tax fraud by it's citizens occuring within the US, but if a tax fraudster escapes to a foreign country with all their possessions before the US catches them, and that country is uninterested in assisting the US, the US may well find it practically impossible to enforce sanctions without engaging in interstate conflict. The only difference with the situation at hand is that an act committee overseas by a foreign entity is more likely to be difficult to sanction since flight for the purpose of evasion is less likely to be necessary (OTOH, if the offender has any contact with the offended jurisdiction, they are still at risk, and being g ofrced to avoid the jurisdiction to avoid sanctions may itself be a kind of sanction.)
- s2g 9y ago
  The US has strongarmed other countries into helping enforce US tax law. It's crazy to see American's pretend the US isn't a massive offender when it comes to pushing their laws well outside their borders.
patmcc 9y ago
>>>the company can freely ignore those demands >>>If Germany sent me a personal letter demanding I cease and desist, I'd ignore it. You (presumably) don't do any business in Germany, or really care about their government being unhappy with you, which is pretty reasonable. Google wants to keep doing business in Canada, so they have to play ball. Can Canada send people into the US offices of google to enforce any of this? Of course not. But can they shut down google in Canada if it refuses to abide by court orders? You bet. (I doubt it'll come to that though)
- mcguire 9y ago
  You have the actual solution, in fact. How long does anyone think a Canadian supreme court decision could stand if Google ceases operations in Canada? I suppose they could stand up a Baidu-like Canadian Google replacement, but it would take a while.

by dsacco 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Do you mean that sovereignty grants that authority in principle, or in actuality? Yes, both. > If the United States doesn't enforce the demands of another country with respect to a company in its borders, the company can freely ignore those demands. The authority to legislate and the ability to impose consequences are two different things. It is, for instance, indisputable that the US has authority to criinalize tax fraud by it's citizens occuring within the US, but if a tax fraudster escapes to a foreign country with all their possessions before the US catches them, and that country is uninterested in assisting the US, the US may well find it practically impossible to enforce sanctions without engaging in interstate conflict. The only difference with the situation at hand is that an act committee overseas by a foreign entity is more likely to be difficult to sanction since flight for the purpose of evasion is less likely to be necessary (OTOH, if the offender has any contact with the offended jurisdiction, they are still at risk, and being g ofrced to avoid the jurisdiction to avoid sanctions may itself be a kind of sanction.)

s2g 9y ago
The US has strongarmed other countries into helping enforce US tax law. It's crazy to see American's pretend the US isn't a massive offender when it comes to pushing their laws well outside their borders.

patmcc 9y ago

>>>the company can freely ignore those demands >>>If Germany sent me a personal letter demanding I cease and desist, I'd ignore it. You (presumably) don't do any business in Germany, or really care about their government being unhappy with you, which is pretty reasonable. Google wants to keep doing business in Canada, so they have to play ball. Can Canada send people into the US offices of google to enforce any of this? Of course not. But can they shut down google in Canada if it refuses to abide by court orders? You bet. (I doubt it'll come to that though)

mcguire 9y ago
You have the actual solution, in fact. How long does anyone think a Canadian supreme court decision could stand if Google ceases operations in Canada? I suppose they could stand up a Baidu-like Canadian Google replacement, but it would take a while.