4 ms·

Trade in the UK and you are, in fact, bound by UK laws. That this regularly comes as a surprise to Americans is perhaps why the UK is so suspicious of US Big T

Trade in the UK and you are, in fact, bound by UK laws. That this regularly comes as a surprise to Americans is perhaps why the UK is so suspicious of US Big Tech firms.

ben_w 3y ago
I agree with what you're saying; the problem is that it looks like the UK is trying to give itself the power to force companies to secretly break the laws of the nation the company is based in. Companies can make themselves the servants of two masters by operating in two jurisdictions with mutually incompatible laws, but they do so at their own peril. Similar discussion with different details comes up sometimes with e.g. "should Apple do business in China?", but (IMO) the UK isn't as important as China and (IMO) has less leverage to encourage companies to take that risk.
- bemusedthrow75 3y ago
  While I think this particular piece of (proposed) law is nuts, I think it’s just a dark mirror of the kinds of laws that compel companies to operate as commercial cover for espionage or unofficial foreign policy and break the law in foreign countries where they operate. And if you think that the USA for example is not already quietly compelling subsidiaries of foreign firms to break the laws of their own home countries then I would suggest you consider why not.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Good point, though bad example - the USA is kinda infamous for throwing their weight around like that. The UK… is run by people who still think the UK's natural place is to rule most of the world.
    - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
      This is untrue. The current British government hold no beliefs in empire or British international superiority. They wouldn’t all have so much of their personal wealth stored and invested offshore if they did! Our government appears to feel deeply entitled, but is insular and defensive, not strident and bold. Nonetheless, I don’t think it is necessarily wrong to create a landscape of legal uncertainty for foreign Big Tech: why would any government not have laws saying “we welcome your business but you must understand that our laws are incompatible with some laws of your home country, and to continue to trade here you agree not to follow those home regulations?” Otherwise the most dominant country in the world simply exports its law through foreign business expansions. And I hate to break it to people but US law is not a strict subset of best practice.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        > Our government appears to feel deeply entitled, but is insular and defensive, not strident and bold. Hm, you justified well, perhaps the current lot aren't quite as bad as the recent few governments from the same party. > Otherwise the most dominant country in the world simply exports its law through foreign business expansions. I think they do, at least a bit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_effect That said, I have for a while now felt that the internet messes with the pre-telecommunications concept of Westphalian sovereignty. No idea how that is going to end up. > And I hate to break it to people but US law is not a strict subset of best practice. As a Brit living in Germany, I absolutely agree. That was one of several reasons why I chose Berlin rather than the Bay, post-Brexit.
        bemusedthrow75 3y ago
        > perhaps the current lot aren't quite as bad as the recent few governments from the same party. Worse on every other metric, unfortunately!

Trade in the UK and you are, in fact, bound by UK laws. That this regularly comes as a surprise to Americans is perhaps why the UK is so suspicious of US Big Tech firms.

ben_w 3y ago

I agree with what you're saying; the problem is that it looks like the UK is trying to give itself the power to force companies to secretly break the laws of the nation the company is based in. Companies can make themselves the servants of two masters by operating in two jurisdictions with mutually incompatible laws, but they do so at their own peril. Similar discussion with different details comes up sometimes with e.g. "should Apple do business in China?", but (IMO) the UK isn't as important as China and (IMO) has less leverage to encourage companies to take that risk.

bemusedthrow75 3y ago
While I think this particular piece of (proposed) law is nuts, I think it’s just a dark mirror of the kinds of laws that compel companies to operate as commercial cover for espionage or unofficial foreign policy and break the law in foreign countries where they operate. And if you think that the USA for example is not already quietly compelling subsidiaries of foreign firms to break the laws of their own home countries then I would suggest you consider why not.
- ben_w 3y ago
  Good point, though bad example - the USA is kinda infamous for throwing their weight around like that. The UK… is run by people who still think the UK's natural place is to rule most of the world.
  - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
    This is untrue. The current British government hold no beliefs in empire or British international superiority. They wouldn’t all have so much of their personal wealth stored and invested offshore if they did! Our government appears to feel deeply entitled, but is insular and defensive, not strident and bold. Nonetheless, I don’t think it is necessarily wrong to create a landscape of legal uncertainty for foreign Big Tech: why would any government not have laws saying “we welcome your business but you must understand that our laws are incompatible with some laws of your home country, and to continue to trade here you agree not to follow those home regulations?” Otherwise the most dominant country in the world simply exports its law through foreign business expansions. And I hate to break it to people but US law is not a strict subset of best practice.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > Our government appears to feel deeply entitled, but is insular and defensive, not strident and bold. Hm, you justified well, perhaps the current lot aren't quite as bad as the recent few governments from the same party. > Otherwise the most dominant country in the world simply exports its law through foreign business expansions. I think they do, at least a bit? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_effect That said, I have for a while now felt that the internet messes with the pre-telecommunications concept of Westphalian sovereignty. No idea how that is going to end up. > And I hate to break it to people but US law is not a strict subset of best practice. As a Brit living in Germany, I absolutely agree. That was one of several reasons why I chose Berlin rather than the Bay, post-Brexit.
      - bemusedthrow75 3y ago
        > perhaps the current lot aren't quite as bad as the recent few governments from the same party. Worse on every other metric, unfortunately!