3 ms·

I keep seeing this idea that because a company is headquartered in some place, means they don't have to follow the laws of the countries where they operate. Ye

by diggan 2y ago

I keep seeing this idea that because a company is headquartered in some place, means they don't have to follow the laws of the countries where they operate. Yes, Signal may be headquartered in the US, but that doesn't mean they can just ignore the laws of other countries, which is exactly what may happen here, depending on the outcome. Sweden may propose a backdoor (a utterly shitty idea, I agree) which Signal may decline (which this submission is about). Then the next step is either Sweden giving up on the request, or placing fines on Signal until they comply or outright ban it, or Signal deciding it isn't worth it (prevent Swedish users from using Signal). All within their capacities and rights, even though I again think it would very stupid approach.

walrus01 2y ago
> I keep seeing this idea that because a company is headquartered in some place, means they don't have to follow the laws of the countries where they operate. My friend's medium size regional ISP is headquartered in the US and as a hosting company certainly has customers who violate any number of censorship, blasphemy, etc laws in Iran, Russia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, just to name a few. Signal doesn't "operate" in Sweden any more or any less than any other internet based service which has zero servers, offices, bank accounts or other physical presence in the country.
arcbyte 2y ago
There are only a few instances where institutional powers pass judgements that they cannot enforce. Generally doing so makes that institution look weak because it puts them in a position to have their rulings openly flouted. That's at the core of what jurisdiction means. Sweden can fine Signal all they want but if they can't enforce the collection, they weaken their power and foster disrespect.
- genewitch 2y ago
  Singal is centralized? Can't they just block it at the border? I understand VPN or whatever, but if they're serious I hear there's a couple of countries with "pretty good" border firewalls. Doing that would eliminate so many Swedes from Signal... I haven't found a VPN solution for iPhone users in a couple of US states. It's like iphones are actively hostile to the very idea of a VPN. Or at least "self-hosted VPN", maybe the $20/month VPN work but that's... Sketchy.
  - arcbyte 2y ago
    You're making my point. Sweden would choose the most effective mechanism that they can actually enforce to deal with Signal's noncompliance. Blocking DNS or ISP access is much more accomplishable for Sweden than trying to levy fines.
throwaway28409 2y ago
> they operate? How are they operating? It might as well be viewed as citizens of Sweden interacting with a foreign service out of their own volition. In general, laws are backed up by the threat of violence. To the extent that Sweden's police can't confiscate Signal's assets in the US, they do not have to comply with anything. The only leverage Sweden's government may have is ISP level censorship, which is likely to cause unintended disruptions. Signal is in turn free to attempt to circumvent the censorship.
brookst 2y ago
Not familiar with Swedish law, but in most of the world the courts have a concept of jurisdiction. Otherwise a small country could just fine Apple $1T and solve its budget woes, and probably build a giant waterslide. I would be surprised if Swedish law allowed for prosecuting a foreign company with not one bit of operations in the country.
- TheCapeGreek 2y ago
  > a foreign company with not one bit of operations in the country. Borrowing from how tax & law is usually applied for companies trading outside of their incorporated country, at least in many places including the EU: If you have users/customers in a certain country, even if your product is purely software, you can be considered to have operations in that country.
  - acuozzo 2y ago
    > even if your product is purely software, you can be considered to have operations in that country Couldn't users in pretty much every internet-connected country use VPNs and other methods of cross-borders indirection to access even those US services which explicitly block non-US IP ranges? If this is the case, then is it not the case under the quoted reasoning above that any internet company should be expected to have operations in every other internet-connected country?
    - TheCapeGreek 2y ago
      I didn't say it was sensible policy. But yes. It's the same reason Australia and now South Africa demand payment from Meta and Google for revenues related to links going to local news sites and the like.
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    > If you have users/customers in a certain country, even if your product is purely software, you can be considered to have operations in that country. If no money is changing hands, good luck with that. (Or, rather, bad luck with that.) (If money is changing hands, you might find your payments blocked by local payment providers, though even then that would take a while and might or might not happen.)

by diggan 2y ago

walrus01 2y ago

> I keep seeing this idea that because a company is headquartered in some place, means they don't have to follow the laws of the countries where they operate. My friend's medium size regional ISP is headquartered in the US and as a hosting company certainly has customers who violate any number of censorship, blasphemy, etc laws in Iran, Russia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Bangladesh, just to name a few. Signal doesn't "operate" in Sweden any more or any less than any other internet based service which has zero servers, offices, bank accounts or other physical presence in the country.

arcbyte 2y ago

There are only a few instances where institutional powers pass judgements that they cannot enforce. Generally doing so makes that institution look weak because it puts them in a position to have their rulings openly flouted. That's at the core of what jurisdiction means. Sweden can fine Signal all they want but if they can't enforce the collection, they weaken their power and foster disrespect.

genewitch 2y ago
Singal is centralized? Can't they just block it at the border? I understand VPN or whatever, but if they're serious I hear there's a couple of countries with "pretty good" border firewalls. Doing that would eliminate so many Swedes from Signal... I haven't found a VPN solution for iPhone users in a couple of US states. It's like iphones are actively hostile to the very idea of a VPN. Or at least "self-hosted VPN", maybe the $20/month VPN work but that's... Sketchy.
- arcbyte 2y ago
  You're making my point. Sweden would choose the most effective mechanism that they can actually enforce to deal with Signal's noncompliance. Blocking DNS or ISP access is much more accomplishable for Sweden than trying to levy fines.

throwaway28409 2y ago

> they operate? How are they operating? It might as well be viewed as citizens of Sweden interacting with a foreign service out of their own volition. In general, laws are backed up by the threat of violence. To the extent that Sweden's police can't confiscate Signal's assets in the US, they do not have to comply with anything. The only leverage Sweden's government may have is ISP level censorship, which is likely to cause unintended disruptions. Signal is in turn free to attempt to circumvent the censorship.

brookst 2y ago

Not familiar with Swedish law, but in most of the world the courts have a concept of jurisdiction. Otherwise a small country could just fine Apple $1T and solve its budget woes, and probably build a giant waterslide. I would be surprised if Swedish law allowed for prosecuting a foreign company with not one bit of operations in the country.

TheCapeGreek 2y ago
> a foreign company with not one bit of operations in the country. Borrowing from how tax & law is usually applied for companies trading outside of their incorporated country, at least in many places including the EU: If you have users/customers in a certain country, even if your product is purely software, you can be considered to have operations in that country.
- acuozzo 2y ago
  > even if your product is purely software, you can be considered to have operations in that country Couldn't users in pretty much every internet-connected country use VPNs and other methods of cross-borders indirection to access even those US services which explicitly block non-US IP ranges? If this is the case, then is it not the case under the quoted reasoning above that any internet company should be expected to have operations in every other internet-connected country?
  - TheCapeGreek 2y ago
    I didn't say it was sensible policy. But yes. It's the same reason Australia and now South Africa demand payment from Meta and Google for revenues related to links going to local news sites and the like.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  > If you have users/customers in a certain country, even if your product is purely software, you can be considered to have operations in that country. If no money is changing hands, good luck with that. (Or, rather, bad luck with that.) (If money is changing hands, you might find your payments blocked by local payment providers, though even then that would take a while and might or might not happen.)