5 ms·

I agree. Companies need to find a way to operate within the law, or not operate. Throwing your hands up and saying it’s too hard is not an acceptable answer.

by Neil44 8y ago

j16sdiz 8y ago
No. They just stash the fine as operation cost. Every bank have been doing this for decades.
mcv 8y ago
I'm not sure how I feel about this argument in light of article 13 of the EU's new copyright directive. Legislators also have a responsibility to make laws that are reasonable and possible to obey. It is possible for companies to obey the Cloud Act, but as far as I can see, only by choosing between operating in the US and operating in the EU. If that's considered unreasonable, then it's a bad law.
- delinka 8y ago
  A company choosing to operate in multiple jurisdictions with competing/contradicting laws does not put a requirement on lawmakers to make the laws more amenable to the company trying to satisfy both jurisdictions. If you take that path, consumers end up with little protection under the law. Maybe the company should split up operations, or operate under licensing agreements with foreign companies rather than thwart the will of the people who they seek to fleece.
  - mcv 8y ago
    You're right, it's not the government's job to protect business models, particularly if they are considered harmful. A sensible government would probably want a healthy environment and market for companies to operate it, but exactly what that means is clearly something on which governments can radically disagree. So I admit that the US is entirely within its rights to create a law that makes it impossible for cloud providers to simultaneously operate in the US and the EU. It's still be sad though that the two major democratic power blocs in the world can't agree on something like this.
    - Silhouette 8y ago
      You're right, it's not the government's job to protect business models, particularly if they are considered harmful. That's a convenient way to pass the buck, but the reality is that this is why we can't (any longer, lawfully) have nice things. It's particularly hypocritical in this case that the EU itself is a facilitator of its member states' security services getting access to personal data in ways that would otherwise clearly violate its own privacy laws, yet it objects strenuously when other countries do exactly the same thing. There is no principled ethical argument at stake here. It's all about who has the power and everyone trying to grab more of it than they're really entitled to, instead of acting like grown-ups, recognising the limits of their own authority, and collaborating with others in areas of genuine mutual interest when there is wider international agreement on certain principles. Perhaps we need another exercise in shutting everything down, to show how much the general public and the businesses in each place stand to lose if this chest-thumping carries on. Just choose a random week and then firewall off every US-based social network in Europe, fine any US-based financial services businesses that do any sort of data processing of EU individuals, and so on. And then a few years later, once the inept politicians have been replaced and when the catastrophic economic damage caused in just that one week has started to heal, maybe we can get back to a more sensible approach to the whole issue of international relations in the age of global communications.
- Silhouette 8y ago
  I'm not sure how I feel about this argument in light of article 13 of the EU's new copyright directive. Legislators also have a responsibility to make laws that are reasonable and possible to obey. And the GDPR. And the proposals to force payment service providers to report or even automatically collect and remit taxes that the EU decides are due. I'm not fan of the US government's invasions of privacy, but it is the height of hypocrisy for the EU in 2019 to complain about a foreign government attempting to enforce its laws extra-territorially.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
delinka 8y ago
>Throwing your hands up and saying it’s too hard... Sounds like the "not operate" option.

I agree. Companies need to find a way to operate within the law, or not operate. Throwing your hands up and saying it’s too hard is not an acceptable answer.

by Neil44 8y ago

I agree. Companies need to find a way to operate within the law, or not operate. Throwing your hands up and saying it’s too hard is not an acceptable answer.

j16sdiz 8y ago

No. They just stash the fine as operation cost. Every bank have been doing this for decades.

mcv 8y ago

I'm not sure how I feel about this argument in light of article 13 of the EU's new copyright directive. Legislators also have a responsibility to make laws that are reasonable and possible to obey. It is possible for companies to obey the Cloud Act, but as far as I can see, only by choosing between operating in the US and operating in the EU. If that's considered unreasonable, then it's a bad law.

delinka 8y ago
A company choosing to operate in multiple jurisdictions with competing/contradicting laws does not put a requirement on lawmakers to make the laws more amenable to the company trying to satisfy both jurisdictions. If you take that path, consumers end up with little protection under the law. Maybe the company should split up operations, or operate under licensing agreements with foreign companies rather than thwart the will of the people who they seek to fleece.
- mcv 8y ago
  You're right, it's not the government's job to protect business models, particularly if they are considered harmful. A sensible government would probably want a healthy environment and market for companies to operate it, but exactly what that means is clearly something on which governments can radically disagree. So I admit that the US is entirely within its rights to create a law that makes it impossible for cloud providers to simultaneously operate in the US and the EU. It's still be sad though that the two major democratic power blocs in the world can't agree on something like this.
  - Silhouette 8y ago
    You're right, it's not the government's job to protect business models, particularly if they are considered harmful. That's a convenient way to pass the buck, but the reality is that this is why we can't (any longer, lawfully) have nice things. It's particularly hypocritical in this case that the EU itself is a facilitator of its member states' security services getting access to personal data in ways that would otherwise clearly violate its own privacy laws, yet it objects strenuously when other countries do exactly the same thing. There is no principled ethical argument at stake here. It's all about who has the power and everyone trying to grab more of it than they're really entitled to, instead of acting like grown-ups, recognising the limits of their own authority, and collaborating with others in areas of genuine mutual interest when there is wider international agreement on certain principles. Perhaps we need another exercise in shutting everything down, to show how much the general public and the businesses in each place stand to lose if this chest-thumping carries on. Just choose a random week and then firewall off every US-based social network in Europe, fine any US-based financial services businesses that do any sort of data processing of EU individuals, and so on. And then a few years later, once the inept politicians have been replaced and when the catastrophic economic damage caused in just that one week has started to heal, maybe we can get back to a more sensible approach to the whole issue of international relations in the age of global communications.
Silhouette 8y ago
I'm not sure how I feel about this argument in light of article 13 of the EU's new copyright directive. Legislators also have a responsibility to make laws that are reasonable and possible to obey. And the GDPR. And the proposals to force payment service providers to report or even automatically collect and remit taxes that the EU decides are due. I'm not fan of the US government's invasions of privacy, but it is the height of hypocrisy for the EU in 2019 to complain about a foreign government attempting to enforce its laws extra-territorially.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

delinka 8y ago

>Throwing your hands up and saying it’s too hard... Sounds like the "not operate" option.