3 ms·

It sets the dangerous precedents of foreign governments imposing rules on internet companies that have no "real" local presence. And before you ask what's wron

It sets the dangerous precedents of foreign governments imposing rules on internet companies that have no "real" local presence. And before you ask what's wrong with that, let's not forget that Saudi Arabia, China, and I'm sure 5 other countries have forced Facebook/Google/Microsoft/... to hand over data and then used it to execute gays and dissidents. Even in the UK case, it's pushing hard for these companies to just hand over all data they have to their secret service (not even limited to UK citizens). You know, to "protect the children".

galvin 8y ago
Facebook has offices in London
- candiodari 8y ago
  I don't see how offices change the argument
  - cannabisceo 8y ago
    What is your definition of 'having a local presence'?
izacus 8y ago
By making their products available to users in the country they effect the people of that country. They ARE present.
- nolok 8y ago
  Eh, you could argue about the making available to access for a long time either way. But there is a much more straight to point argument: they want, and take, money from UK customers (advertisers). If they want to keep doing that, they need to follow UK laws. It's like how your little website may do things that are not ok in country X and you don't care, but if you want people and businesses from country X to be able to spend money on your website then you need to care.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Yet it seems like it sets a less dangerous precedent than heavy handedly seizing a domain via ICANN and closing down poker sites that had no presence at all in the USA. Similar for torrent and streaming sites, or Kim Dotcom. Perhaps the UK should have adopted the heavy handed US approach instead? Nations, including and often starting with the USA, want internet companies to obey their laws. That shouldn't still surprise. In the case of less savoury regimes I would prefer that Facebook, Google or whoever would respond ethically and choose to withdraw rather than compromise thousands of people to make a few extra dollars. Better yet I'd prefer that data sharing with such places was legislated against.
rleigh 8y ago
It's a huge conceit to suggest that "internet companies" have not got a "real" location. They are registered companies. They have head offices. They have regional offices. They own entire datacentres. They are traded on stock exchanges. They trade for money with customers in countries all over the world. They are not above the law. Legally, is Facebook any different than say, 3M or IBM? Both are US corporations with offices, manufacturing and distribution facilities in the UK. They are obviously subject to UK law. The precise location of particular data stored by the company, and servers accessing the data, seems a very odd criterion upon which to argue that the company is not subject to the rule of law. The company exists as a legal entity in the UK, it has offices and employees, and customers. It does have a presence. And it should absolutely be required to obey the law of the land. (A few years ago, I might have had a slightly different view. But companies like Facebook and Google have taken such gross liberties with the law, and even the fundamental functioning of democracy itself, that I think there's an urgent need for them to be reigned in, harshly. They brought it entirely upon themselves.)

galvin 8y ago

Facebook has offices in London

candiodari 8y ago
I don't see how offices change the argument
- cannabisceo 8y ago
  What is your definition of 'having a local presence'?

izacus 8y ago

By making their products available to users in the country they effect the people of that country. They ARE present.

nolok 8y ago
Eh, you could argue about the making available to access for a long time either way. But there is a much more straight to point argument: they want, and take, money from UK customers (advertisers). If they want to keep doing that, they need to follow UK laws. It's like how your little website may do things that are not ok in country X and you don't care, but if you want people and businesses from country X to be able to spend money on your website then you need to care.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Yet it seems like it sets a less dangerous precedent than heavy handedly seizing a domain via ICANN and closing down poker sites that had no presence at all in the USA. Similar for torrent and streaming sites, or Kim Dotcom. Perhaps the UK should have adopted the heavy handed US approach instead? Nations, including and often starting with the USA, want internet companies to obey their laws. That shouldn't still surprise. In the case of less savoury regimes I would prefer that Facebook, Google or whoever would respond ethically and choose to withdraw rather than compromise thousands of people to make a few extra dollars. Better yet I'd prefer that data sharing with such places was legislated against.

rleigh 8y ago

It's a huge conceit to suggest that "internet companies" have not got a "real" location. They are registered companies. They have head offices. They have regional offices. They own entire datacentres. They are traded on stock exchanges. They trade for money with customers in countries all over the world. They are not above the law. Legally, is Facebook any different than say, 3M or IBM? Both are US corporations with offices, manufacturing and distribution facilities in the UK. They are obviously subject to UK law. The precise location of particular data stored by the company, and servers accessing the data, seems a very odd criterion upon which to argue that the company is not subject to the rule of law. The company exists as a legal entity in the UK, it has offices and employees, and customers. It does have a presence. And it should absolutely be required to obey the law of the land. (A few years ago, I might have had a slightly different view. But companies like Facebook and Google have taken such gross liberties with the law, and even the fundamental functioning of democracy itself, that I think there's an urgent need for them to be reigned in, harshly. They brought it entirely upon themselves.)