5 ms·

If that's your stance, shouldn't it apply to every company[1][2][3] that is already engaging in this? What makes Google a target for litigation here? edit: Not

If that's your stance, shouldn't it apply to every company[1][2][3] that is already engaging in this? What makes Google a target for litigation here? edit: Not saying that because other companies do something similar that Google should get carte-blanche, just trying to see what the differentiation is. 1: https://qz.com/990662/microsoft-released-a-new-version-of-windows-thats-tailor-made-for-the-chinese-government/ https://qz.com/990662/microsoft-released-a-new-version-of-wi... 2: https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/18/apple-icloud-data-china-stored-state-run-telco/ https://www.engadget.com/2018/07/18/apple-icloud-data-china-... 3: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-congress/facebook-confirms-data-sharing-with-chinese-companies-idUSKCN1J11TY https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-congress...

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>What makes Google a target for litigation here? Under laws that are selectively enforced, either drawing the ire of the ones in charge of enforcement or drawing the ire of the general public enough they pressure the ones in charge of enforcement to act. In either case, what draws ire could be actions largely unrelated to the laws themselves and may be based on actions that people generally would not support making illegal. This is a flaw with selective enforcement, and why I support ending selective enforcement.
rory096 8y ago
More directly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2018/09/21/why-are-u-s-companies-working-for-a-chinese-firm-thats-implicated-in-ethnic-cleansing/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2018/0... (note that "tens of thousands of cameras throughout Xinjiang" is an error — that's tens of thousands in one county alone https://twitter.com/BenjaminDooley/status/1044201485939036160 https://twitter.com/BenjaminDooley/status/104420148593903616...)
int_19h 8y ago
Yes. We're long overdue for some house cleaning in that regard. You should not be able to run your company in US - enjoying the fruits of a free democratic society with rule of law, due process etc - and use those fruits to enable the opposite elsewhere in the world. If Google, Facebook etc don't like it, they're welcome to move their headquarters and main campus to China. Then it will be an internal matter of China. So long as they're here, they should not be allowed to do things that our culture considers deeply inappropriate.
- tsunamifury 8y ago
  This is a nice platitude, but once you dig deeper you'll see that its not coherent. You're saying that companies are obligated to spread their home nation law to other nations, and conversely foreign companies to you in your own nation. I believe you'd find that extremely uncomfortable very quickly.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that American companies are obligated to not help other governments implement oppressive laws, or, in general, aid and abet in carrying out things that we consider despicable as a culture. This is not at all the same as American companies spreading American law elsewhere. The law should be applied to those companies operating here (in particular, any of their management and engineers here) not to their foreign customers. Similarly, if China would punish any company that, say, does not censor information about Tienanmen protests here in US, that's their business. That does not push their censorship laws on me in any meaningful sense - it means that if I deal with a Chinese company, I get Chinese censorship, which is reasonable and expected; or I can deal with an American or a European company instead. There's no law applied to me either way.
    - tsunamifury 8y ago
      You are ultimately saying within a sovereign nation you should abide by the law of that nation but the cultural values of another.
      - int_19h 8y ago
        And again, no. I'm saying that you should abide by the law of the nation where you're performing an activity - say, designing and implementing some piece of software - regardless of where the fruits of your labor will eventually be deployed. And the law of that nation will, of course, be based on its cultural values. So if the culture of that nation frowns upon helping to oppress people in certain ways, then you shall not do so while in the jurisdiction of that nation, regardless of where the oppressed people are located. None of this imposes any cultural values on anyone who is not in the jurisdiction of our nation. If China wants to have their Panopticon, they can still do it - themselves. But Google doesn't get to help them to do so, because it is an American company, and people who implement these tools of oppression are American residents, subject to American laws and cultural values. China doesn't have any natural right to the fruits of their labor. Really, this is no different from prohibiting or regulating arms exports. Do you have similar objections to, say, arms embargo on DPRK?

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

>What makes Google a target for litigation here? Under laws that are selectively enforced, either drawing the ire of the ones in charge of enforcement or drawing the ire of the general public enough they pressure the ones in charge of enforcement to act. In either case, what draws ire could be actions largely unrelated to the laws themselves and may be based on actions that people generally would not support making illegal. This is a flaw with selective enforcement, and why I support ending selective enforcement.

rory096 8y ago

More directly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2018/09/21/why-are-u-s-companies-working-for-a-chinese-firm-thats-implicated-in-ethnic-cleansing/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2018/0... (note that "tens of thousands of cameras throughout Xinjiang" is an error — that's tens of thousands in one county alone https://twitter.com/BenjaminDooley/status/1044201485939036160 https://twitter.com/BenjaminDooley/status/104420148593903616...)

int_19h 8y ago

Yes. We're long overdue for some house cleaning in that regard. You should not be able to run your company in US - enjoying the fruits of a free democratic society with rule of law, due process etc - and use those fruits to enable the opposite elsewhere in the world. If Google, Facebook etc don't like it, they're welcome to move their headquarters and main campus to China. Then it will be an internal matter of China. So long as they're here, they should not be allowed to do things that our culture considers deeply inappropriate.

tsunamifury 8y ago
This is a nice platitude, but once you dig deeper you'll see that its not coherent. You're saying that companies are obligated to spread their home nation law to other nations, and conversely foreign companies to you in your own nation. I believe you'd find that extremely uncomfortable very quickly.
- int_19h 8y ago
  No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that American companies are obligated to not help other governments implement oppressive laws, or, in general, aid and abet in carrying out things that we consider despicable as a culture. This is not at all the same as American companies spreading American law elsewhere. The law should be applied to those companies operating here (in particular, any of their management and engineers here) not to their foreign customers. Similarly, if China would punish any company that, say, does not censor information about Tienanmen protests here in US, that's their business. That does not push their censorship laws on me in any meaningful sense - it means that if I deal with a Chinese company, I get Chinese censorship, which is reasonable and expected; or I can deal with an American or a European company instead. There's no law applied to me either way.
  - tsunamifury 8y ago
    You are ultimately saying within a sovereign nation you should abide by the law of that nation but the cultural values of another.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      And again, no. I'm saying that you should abide by the law of the nation where you're performing an activity - say, designing and implementing some piece of software - regardless of where the fruits of your labor will eventually be deployed. And the law of that nation will, of course, be based on its cultural values. So if the culture of that nation frowns upon helping to oppress people in certain ways, then you shall not do so while in the jurisdiction of that nation, regardless of where the oppressed people are located. None of this imposes any cultural values on anyone who is not in the jurisdiction of our nation. If China wants to have their Panopticon, they can still do it - themselves. But Google doesn't get to help them to do so, because it is an American company, and people who implement these tools of oppression are American residents, subject to American laws and cultural values. China doesn't have any natural right to the fruits of their labor. Really, this is no different from prohibiting or regulating arms exports. Do you have similar objections to, say, arms embargo on DPRK?