4 ms·
If I were Gabbard, I would go further and be more concerned that a UK company forced a US company to downgrade its privacy to suit its politics on privacy, whic
by nullbyte808 2y ago
If I were Gabbard, I would go further and be more concerned that a UK company forced a US company to downgrade its privacy to suit its politics on privacy, which clearly confict with US ideals of privacy and free speech.
- suddenlybananas 2y agoWell, the UK is a sovereign country so they have the right to tell companies operating in their borders to do what they please.
- lom 2y agoDoesn’t mean that the US government just needs to accept that.
- beardyw 2y agoWhat does the US government have to do with it?
- lodovic 2y agoThe US government allowing a US company to operate in the US market, while the company enables a foreign country to access all US citizen's data. That's where the government is supposed to step in.
- beardyw 2y agoNo, that is not the intention. If that were the case US diplomats would have intervened before now. Or maybe they were engaged in writing up what they did last week.
- lodovic 2y agoIt's how I understood the UK's request to Apple, "Give us a global backdoor". If not, what was the intention?
- kelnos 2y agoFor the most part, yes it does. And really, it's only fair that it does, even if I think laws like these in the UK are complete garbage. But sure, countries can sign trade treaties that give each other mutually-beneficial things. Some of those things could be what is and isn't allowed to require companies to do in order to operate within the other country's borders. But in absence of something like that... that's just life. I guess the US could act like a baby and slap tariffs on goods from the UK, but I'm not sure what the upside would be for the US here.
- actionfromafar 2y agoThe upshot is for Trusk to take full personal control over all of the state apparatus after smashing everything to pieces.
- pjc50 2y agoAs with the Ukraine situation, the real underlying question is "does more than one country in the world get to have soverignty?"
- disgruntledphd2 2y agoCome on now, does anyone really believe that this sort of thing isn't co-ordinated at Five Eyes level?
- genewitch 2y agoFunny. Since UK spies on us for US, and US spies on UK for UK. So this is a charade while status is quo, I guess.
- disgruntledphd2 2y agoYeah, that's the whole point of Five Eyes these days.
- bilvar 2y agoWell, apparently even sovereign countries sign treaties with each other.
- amarcheschi 2y agoUs ideals on privacy? Is this a joke I can't understand because I got a flu?
- Etheryte 2y agoI don't really see the problem with this specific bit? You want big international companies to follow the local laws of the countries they operate in, or to move out if that doesn't work for them, that's a good thing.
- beardyw 2y agoThat's nonsensical. Every company has to abide by the laws in the country it is doing business in. It is a costly and complex issue that all international companies need to engage in. To not do so is to not do business.
- itopaloglu83 2y agoUK requested access to any and all persons worldwide not just people under UK jurisdiction either by citizenship or physical location. Why would France, Germany, or any other country should allow their citizens in their sovereign country to be treated like that? And what’s next? “If you want to do business in country X then give us all the user data for country Y?
- actionfromafar 2y agoThis is exactly how it works. It's better to not do business with some countries.
- kelnos 2y agoThis is nothing new. For example, Apple submits to much worse privacy-weakening in exchange for being allowed to operate in China. Countries are free to set whatever conditions they like for allowing a company access to its market.
- _lvbh 2y agoThe difference is that the UK wants access to data everywhere, not just its own country