4 ms·

You're missing one further step - you can also sanction a foreign business from doing business in your country. So, you can allow it to serve your citizens pack

by vkou 1y ago

You're missing one further step - you can also sanction a foreign business from doing business in your country. So, you can allow it to serve your citizens packets, but if you block it from collecting revenue, it will have little incentive to (unless it's a state-sponsored bad actor, then you can only lean on the two mechanisms you described). All three prongs (ban hosting, ban access, ban revenue) can be used to keep foreign interference out of your country.

Ajedi32 1y ago
True, but I would still frame that as a restriction on your own citizen's freedom to buy services from foreign countries. Unless they're physically shipping stuff across your borders, a foreign website that accepts payment from your citizens isn't "doing business in your country" anymore than a hot dog vendor is by serving foreign tourists in my opinion.
- vkou 1y ago
  > Unless they're physically shipping stuff across your borders, a foreign website that accepts payment from your citizens isn't "doing business in your country" anymore than a hot dog vendor is by serving foreign tourists in my opinion. We're in the electronic age, 'stuff' includes electricity, media, and remote-provided services. For a concrete example - if you're buying legal advice from a lawyer, it doesn't matter if he's down the street from you, or on another continent - the exchange of money for 'stuff' is the same.
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> but if you block it from collecting revenue How is this not a trade barrier against foreign payment providers?
- vkou 1y ago
  If it's nation-of-origin-agnostic (All vendors, domestic or foreign have to follow the same rules, and the foreigners have chosen to not follow those rules, and are being sanctioned for it), it's not a trade barrier. It's just a foreign company being upset that it isn't getting special treatment that would allow it to operate with an illegal advantage over local vendors.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    Is that what it is though? It seems weird that such an overwhelming majority of US retail banking customers are using a domestic institution if the foreign ones are getting a fair shake, doesn't it? Countries do a thing where they call something "neutral rules" while crafting them such that only the domestic incumbents can satisfy them or they can be selectively enforced against anyone the regulators don't like or who actually does or is deemed likely to refuse to comply with extralegal requests that the law doesn't or couldn't require. The US financial regulators do exactly that and you can see it in the outcomes.
    - vkou 1y ago
      > It seems weird that such an overwhelming majority of US retail banking customers are using a domestic institution if the foreign ones are getting a fair shake, doesn't it? Why is it weird? All other aspects being equal, why would you want to put your money into a bank that's accountable to another government first, and your market second? Banking involves a ton of (unverifiable from the retail end) trust. There are a lot of risks to it. Going with a local institution mitigates some of them, and going with a foreign one adds very few benefits (Unless you're doing a lot of business in their home country). You can absolutely bank with a foreign bank. HSBC is a giant international bank. TD and RBC are Canadian banks with branches in the US (RBC's are whitelabeled as City National Bank). If you want to do some tax evasion, or deal with the fallout of rogue traders, or bank with someone who has the rotting corpse of Credit Suisse anchored around its neck, you're free to do your retail (or investment) banking with UBS. Why aren't you using them? I assure you, you'll find the experience largely interchangeable with the same level of service you'd expect from any of the Big Four.
      - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        > All other aspects being equal, why would you want to put your money into a bank that's accountable to another government first, and your market second? Because if they were operating in the US then they'd be FDIC insured and subject to US courts like any US bank, and because all else isn't equal. They could be offering better interest rates, or lower fees, or better customer service, or anything else that could make customers want to use them. And since they want business, they'd do those things to exactly the extent it would take for them to get market share. Unless something is preventing that.

by vkou 1y ago

Ajedi32 1y ago

True, but I would still frame that as a restriction on your own citizen's freedom to buy services from foreign countries. Unless they're physically shipping stuff across your borders, a foreign website that accepts payment from your citizens isn't "doing business in your country" anymore than a hot dog vendor is by serving foreign tourists in my opinion.

vkou 1y ago
> Unless they're physically shipping stuff across your borders, a foreign website that accepts payment from your citizens isn't "doing business in your country" anymore than a hot dog vendor is by serving foreign tourists in my opinion. We're in the electronic age, 'stuff' includes electricity, media, and remote-provided services. For a concrete example - if you're buying legal advice from a lawyer, it doesn't matter if he's down the street from you, or on another continent - the exchange of money for 'stuff' is the same.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

> but if you block it from collecting revenue How is this not a trade barrier against foreign payment providers?

vkou 1y ago
If it's nation-of-origin-agnostic (All vendors, domestic or foreign have to follow the same rules, and the foreigners have chosen to not follow those rules, and are being sanctioned for it), it's not a trade barrier. It's just a foreign company being upset that it isn't getting special treatment that would allow it to operate with an illegal advantage over local vendors.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  Is that what it is though? It seems weird that such an overwhelming majority of US retail banking customers are using a domestic institution if the foreign ones are getting a fair shake, doesn't it? Countries do a thing where they call something "neutral rules" while crafting them such that only the domestic incumbents can satisfy them or they can be selectively enforced against anyone the regulators don't like or who actually does or is deemed likely to refuse to comply with extralegal requests that the law doesn't or couldn't require. The US financial regulators do exactly that and you can see it in the outcomes.
  - vkou 1y ago
    > It seems weird that such an overwhelming majority of US retail banking customers are using a domestic institution if the foreign ones are getting a fair shake, doesn't it? Why is it weird? All other aspects being equal, why would you want to put your money into a bank that's accountable to another government first, and your market second? Banking involves a ton of (unverifiable from the retail end) trust. There are a lot of risks to it. Going with a local institution mitigates some of them, and going with a foreign one adds very few benefits (Unless you're doing a lot of business in their home country). You can absolutely bank with a foreign bank. HSBC is a giant international bank. TD and RBC are Canadian banks with branches in the US (RBC's are whitelabeled as City National Bank). If you want to do some tax evasion, or deal with the fallout of rogue traders, or bank with someone who has the rotting corpse of Credit Suisse anchored around its neck, you're free to do your retail (or investment) banking with UBS. Why aren't you using them? I assure you, you'll find the experience largely interchangeable with the same level of service you'd expect from any of the Big Four.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      > All other aspects being equal, why would you want to put your money into a bank that's accountable to another government first, and your market second? Because if they were operating in the US then they'd be FDIC insured and subject to US courts like any US bank, and because all else isn't equal. They could be offering better interest rates, or lower fees, or better customer service, or anything else that could make customers want to use them. And since they want business, they'd do those things to exactly the extent it would take for them to get market share. Unless something is preventing that.