4 ms·
My shorter version: Precedent in the US is that the US views its jurisdiction over US citizens and corporations as global. If I as a US citizen step over the b
by epc 6y ago
My shorter version: Precedent in the US is that the US views its jurisdiction over US citizens and corporations as global. If I as a US citizen step over the border to your country and bribe an official of your country in order to gain a commercial contract, I can (and probably, though not definitely) will be prosecuted for breaking US law, regardless of whether or not bribery is perfectly legal in your country. Same for corporations: if the act is prohibited in the US, the US Government generally does not distinguish between whether the act occurred in the US or not.
This is not new. The Internet exacerbates the potential for conflicts, but it’s not a new problem with the rise of the Internet.
- elmo2you 6y agoThe US government should do whatever it sees fit for its subjects. That's not the issue. The issue is that a US company should also be held accountable for whatever they violates abroad. Not by the US government, of course. But by the authorities of whatever foreign market they operate on (the only authority with jurisdiction anyways). While the tide is gradually changing, so far a substantial part of the problem is that the US government has quite a few nasty ways to shield US companies from being seriously held accountable abroad. Still, the longer that reality exists, the more inevitable it will become that at some point US companies will simply be barred altogether from (some) foreign markets. You can only abuse a dominant position for so long, before the receiving end will no longer put up with it. That is, of course, when (or as soon as) they have the luxury of choice in the matter.