3 ms·

No matter the values and principles, no matter whether you agree with them or not, at the end of the day both positions are the law in the respective territorie

by puzzle 8y ago

No matter the values and principles, no matter whether you agree with them or not, at the end of the day both positions are the law in the respective territories. You don't get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced. But you can choose which countries to do business in, of course.

Emma_Goldman 8y ago
'You don't get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced. But you can choose which countries to do business in, of course.' That's - if you'll excuse me - a very amoral and commercial way of looking at things: you don't belong to any society, and don't wish to exercise any control in any society, and the only way in which you can or should exercise your rights is in where you do business. It is precisely the rationale of democracy that you DO 'get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced' (to some extent).
- loceng 8y ago
  Right, and a growing concern is understanding the dangers and unavoidable pitfalls of censorship - even if the people who want to implement the systems have good hearts and mean for the best, it can make it easier for bad actors to take those systems over and silence who and what they want - and it can be subtle; imagine if such censorship existed in the US, and the Trump administration had control over it - do you think we would have heard anything about the Khashoggi trap, torture, and assassination by bad actors in Saudi?
- puzzle 8y ago
  I thought this whole conversation was in the context of companies like Google? I don't think companies are people. They definitely don't get to flout the laws as they see fit, but they have the right to operate in the markets they choose. Even lobbying makes me uneasy. As to the laws, yes, it's up to the citizens to shape and evolve them, through a referendum, elected official, regime change or whatever other way. But once they're signed, they're the law.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  It is precisely the rationale of democracy that you DO 'get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced' (to some extent). We can change the law formally, but rely on people following and enforcing that law in the absence of the formal change. It's not for companies or individuals to decide, unilaterally, what laws they will enforce or follow, in any society.
ma2rten 8y ago
I am not sure what you point is. It's not just a binary thing: we do business in the country or we don't. With any decision you have to see if it's in line with your values or not. For me personally, I am fine with passive censorship in China. My wife is Thai-Chinese so I can accept that there is a cultural difference. Where I would draw the line is when a company hands over information about individuals and then those individuals disappear with out any due process.
- puzzle 8y ago
  My point is that the law is the law. You can and should work to change laws if you don't like them. But, if you break a law that you don't agree with, there is no broadband in jail (as Eric Schmidt used to say).

by puzzle 8y ago

Emma_Goldman 8y ago

'You don't get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced. But you can choose which countries to do business in, of course.' That's - if you'll excuse me - a very amoral and commercial way of looking at things: you don't belong to any society, and don't wish to exercise any control in any society, and the only way in which you can or should exercise your rights is in where you do business. It is precisely the rationale of democracy that you DO 'get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced' (to some extent).

loceng 8y ago
Right, and a growing concern is understanding the dangers and unavoidable pitfalls of censorship - even if the people who want to implement the systems have good hearts and mean for the best, it can make it easier for bad actors to take those systems over and silence who and what they want - and it can be subtle; imagine if such censorship existed in the US, and the Trump administration had control over it - do you think we would have heard anything about the Khashoggi trap, torture, and assassination by bad actors in Saudi?
puzzle 8y ago
I thought this whole conversation was in the context of companies like Google? I don't think companies are people. They definitely don't get to flout the laws as they see fit, but they have the right to operate in the markets they choose. Even lobbying makes me uneasy. As to the laws, yes, it's up to the citizens to shape and evolve them, through a referendum, elected official, regime change or whatever other way. But once they're signed, they're the law.
solidsnack9000 8y ago
It is precisely the rationale of democracy that you DO 'get to pick and choose which laws should be enforced' (to some extent). We can change the law formally, but rely on people following and enforcing that law in the absence of the formal change. It's not for companies or individuals to decide, unilaterally, what laws they will enforce or follow, in any society.

ma2rten 8y ago

I am not sure what you point is. It's not just a binary thing: we do business in the country or we don't. With any decision you have to see if it's in line with your values or not. For me personally, I am fine with passive censorship in China. My wife is Thai-Chinese so I can accept that there is a cultural difference. Where I would draw the line is when a company hands over information about individuals and then those individuals disappear with out any due process.

puzzle 8y ago
My point is that the law is the law. You can and should work to change laws if you don't like them. But, if you break a law that you don't agree with, there is no broadband in jail (as Eric Schmidt used to say).