Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:31PM   Printer-friendly
from the inconceivable dept.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it would hear a major digital privacy case that will determine whether law enforcement officials can demand user data stored by technology companies in other countries.

In 2013, federal investigators obtained a warrant for emails and identifying information tied to a Microsoft Outlook account they believed was being used to organize drug trafficking. The problem was that the emails were stored overseas in Ireland, where the anonymous user of the account registered as a resident.
...
If the court sides with the Department of Justice lawyers in this new case, the government will have unfettered access to the data tech companies store all over the world, provided it has a warrant. During the appeals court case, Microsoft's lawyers argued that the US is essentially trying to say that its laws extend across borders.

A superpower can demand all the extraterritoriality it wants.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:47PM (11 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:47PM (#583648)

    a major digital privacy case that will determine whether law enforcement officials can demand user data stored by technology companies in other countries.

    What does that mean?

    • Are the officials making demands of companies in other countries?

    • Are the officials making demands for data in other countries?

    • Both?

    I think this is what the author meant: a major digital privacy case that will determine whether law enforcement officials can demand from American companies any user data that is stored outside the United States.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:49PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:49PM (#583650)

      Oh, well. One cannot criticize someone's use of language without fucking it up oneself, amirite?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:43PM (3 children)

        by edIII (791) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:43PM (#583725)

        As if that debate is settled by any means....

        Grammar Myths [onlinegrammar.com.au]

        For most uses I prefer the singular. If it is plural we are almost always talking about records and recordsets, or files, etc. In most uses data can be treated similar to the word information. Also, according to your rules, datum points is the correct way to state it, but that is almost never used. Data points *is* what is used.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:13AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:13AM (#583764)

          The word "data" is plural.

          The singular form is "datum".

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @03:11AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @03:11AM (#583787)

            That battle's already been lost, like "literally" is now meaning "figuratively".

            The singular form is "a piece/point of data", at best. Treat it like mass noun. "Sugar", "flour", "data".

          • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @03:52AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @03:52AM (#583795)

            Data is a collective noun, if you want the singular, it's not datum, that's wrong, the singular is piece of data.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:59PM

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @08:59PM (#583657)

      I think Microsoft is arguing the Microsoft Ireland is an Irish company. It is certainly subject to Irish law (even if Microsoft lose this case), so if the Irish legislate to prevent the data going to the US, Microsoft Ireland will be in a bit of a pickle.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:14PM (1 child)

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:14PM (#583667) Homepage
      I demand the data myself. I have that right, so I'm sure the world police have that right too.

      And microsoft ireland, if that's who it is, have the right to tell me to shove my demands where the sun never shines.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @08:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @08:08PM (#584108)

        where the sun never shines.

        Achnasheen?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ledow on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:39PM (2 children)

      by ledow (5567) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:39PM (#583723) Homepage

      Microsoft (Ireland) is an entirely different company to Microsoft (US). If they weren't the same company, we could tax Microsoft (US) for the money it makes from the EU, for instance.

      If you start saying that everyone carrying your name has to provide all their data to the US, you just killed every US company doing business on foreign soil. In same cases, you can't even trade in a country without having a company headquartered in it (so everyone has a local subsidiary in that country, even if it's just an office with a lawyer and an accountant), but that company is ENTIRELY under that country's law (so giving up their data will see you go to jail).

      Whether or not the US judge rules either way, NOBODY in Microsoft (Ireland) can legally ALLOW (let alone actually give) their customer's data to leave the EU. You can't sack them for refusing. You can't insist they "let it happen". If they are aware of it (and they would have to be) they are legally obliged to take all technical and legal measures against it happening. Even allowing it to happen through slack security will see them in court. Welcome to proper data-protection.

      And, being a separate company, the EU subsidiary can just bin anything from a US court. If it wants to enforce it, it would have to get the EU court to issue such an order (such as is done on a regular basis), and then that data will be subject to EU legal tests - such as whether it's necessary, proportionate, anonymised sufficiently, etc.

      The US doesn't own the world. 50% of most of those mega-corporations business is done in the EU. Usually more than any US sales. They can order what they like, like the court could order me to provide him with a free banana because he's hungry. I rip up the out-of-jurisdiction order and carry on with my life. Maybe I can't go to the US. Cool. That's a great business relation, well done.

      They've been saying for YEARS that they'd order this, but it's fundamentally incompatible with international and EU law and literally unenforceable. It also would provide a backlash of similar requests and market-actions that would cost the US dear if they pushed the issue via side-channels to steal that data.

      If a US judge can order me to give up my data, then I can order the entire US to give up theirs, in a roundabout way. If all I had to do was find the right court to make that happen, it would be anarchy, but no matter what court you use, the request just falls on deaf-ears the other end.

      Nobody in the EU is going to break the local law to comply with a request from a jurisdiction they are not subject to. And they can't be made to make that decision. It's made for them, already. They can't be punished for having followed that decision not-to-act either, it would end up in more court cases than you could imagine overnight.

      And the EU courts will just keep batting it back saying "file the proper paperwork and you could have had this years ago... that you DON'T want to file the paperwork tells us that we shouldn't be giving you that data".

      • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:26AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:26AM (#583750)

        We can do whatever we want with Microsoft. We can tax them for Ireland. We can make them hack things in Ireland.

        How the Irish react is up to them. What are we going to do, send the Marines? Well, actually we could, but that wouldn't be worthwhile. We could have CIA agents throw a bag over somebody and then sneak them out of the country in a diplomatic pouch or in a mini-submarine. Again, this isn't worthwhile, but we could do it. There are numerous ways to bully Ireland.

        So yes, we certainly can tell Microsoft to get the data, and we can punish them if they fail. Perhaps the US employees will all sneak into Canada and claim asylum.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @03:15AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @03:15AM (#583789)

          There are numerous ways to bully Ireland.

          Not as numerous as they once were. It's part of the EU now, and since the Snowden leaks, EU doesn't roll over easily over data protection. Some other things, yes, this one, no.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:08PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:08PM (#583663)

    We know that judges can write warrants for any thing on earth, the effect depends on where the system can project its power. Micro$oft US is definitely subject to US warrants, but the data is located at a facility controlled by Micro$oft Ireland. With the mediation of the Irish justice system, the warrant may be made applicable to M$ Ireland. I'm sure the US government would rather leave the Irish out of this, argue that since M$ Ireland is a 100% owned subsidiary of M$ US, there must be management authority in M$ US to order M$ Ireland to provide the data.

    Providing the data without Irish mediation may be illegal in Ireland, so management is in a difficult position. What would actually happen probably will also depend on the nationality of M$ IE's chief. If he's Irish, he's probably safe by following Irish law regardless of what the US warrant says, but probably shouldn't fly close to the US the next few decades.

    • (Score: 2) by ilsa on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:33PM (7 children)

      by ilsa (6082) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:33PM (#583680)

      Are you using an autocorrect macro to convert all occurrences of Microsoft and MS to Micro$oft and M$?

      It's awfully consistent to be simple trolling.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:52PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:52PM (#583708)

        Choose another word, honey.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Osamabobama on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:40PM (4 children)

        by Osamabobama (5842) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:40PM (#583724)

        I started wondering if doing that with the dollar sign was still a thing. It really took me back...

        --
        Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:55PM (1 child)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:55PM (#583732) Journal

          I think I $lipped it into a $ummary one time. U$er$ were incen$ed.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:33AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:33AM (#583754)

            Yeah, that's what got Assange in trouble in Sweden.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:11PM (#583913)

          What about micros~1?

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @06:59PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @06:59PM (#584052)

          Why should people stop using m$? It denotes their essence. Not exclusively, alright, so what?

      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:57PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:57PM (#583733) Journal

        $uddenly, an innocent po$t about multiple $clero$i$ i$ tainted by computer politic$!

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:34PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:34PM (#583681)

      Sounds about right. This sounds like an interesting case to test how governments can exert their authority over multinational corporations. MS Ireland is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MS, which is a US-based company, therefore Redmond claiming they can't access the data is obviously ridiculous. However if there's an actual conflict between Irish and US law, this should be interesting.

      Perhaps MNCs shouldn't exist?

    • (Score: 2) by tonyPick on Wednesday October 18 2017, @05:03AM (3 children)

      by tonyPick (1237) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @05:03AM (#583811) Homepage Journal

      there must be management authority in M$ US to order M$ Ireland to provide the data.

      AIUI MS/US can directly access the data already: to quote the government argument in this case from slate [slate.com]

      "noting that Microsoft could access the data from Redmond, Washington, where it is based, which made this a territorial search"

      So if it took MS to order an Irish employee they could do that, and he could legally refuse (since he's in ireland). But I believe that that isn't the case here, since the US side can get at the data already, so it's only US employees & companies involved here. (further citations on this welcome though... )

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by choose another one on Wednesday October 18 2017, @08:54AM (2 children)

        by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 18 2017, @08:54AM (#583851)

        So if it took MS to order an Irish employee they could do that, and he could legally refuse (since he's in ireland).

        He/she could refuse, but would then be unable to travel anywhere near the US, or could acquiesce and take the punishment in Ireland which would probably be much much less than in the US.

        But I believe that that isn't the case here, since the US side can get at the data already, so it's only US employees & companies involved here. (further citations on this welcome though... )

        Leaving those people then unable to travel to the EU (not just Ireland, there is the European Arrest Warrant). Gonna make international management meetings a bit tricky.

        But beyond that, there is also the issue of corporate responsibility and EU data protection laws, whether MS instructs MS-Ireland or does it itself, it will have (very publically) breached EU law, and that opens it up to fines of 2% of (worldwide) turnover. Further, I know that MS has made a _lot_ of Azure sales based on the "EU-located" nature of the Irish server provision, basically saying to customers "you can use our cloud and satisfy EU DP because you can specify servers in Ireland" - that all falls apart if any data on those servers can be shipped to US without EU court orders. Stakes are high here, billions in fines, and billions in business revenue.

        • (Score: 2) by tonyPick on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:58AM (1 child)

          by tonyPick (1237) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:58AM (#583865) Homepage Journal

          He/she could refuse, but would then be unable to travel anywhere near the US, or could acquiesce and take the punishment in Ireland which would probably be much much less than in the US

          For obeying the EU law in an EU country? That'd be much more of a Jurisdictional reach legally speaking. They probably wouldn't be arrested for the same reason you can drink at 18 in the UK and then go back to a US state where the minimum age is 21 without worrying about getting arrested. They're obeying all the laws in the country they're in.

          (Now if they went to the US, and had access the data while they were there, then could they be ordered to hand it over while they're in a US Jurisdiction, and get in trouble for not doing so? And would that create a liability when they went back? ....I suspect so, but that's a different case to this, and IANAL so who knows?)

          it will have (very publically) breached EU law...

          All very true, but that's Microsoft's problem, not the US governments. From us.gov's perspective it's asking a US employee of a US company to do something in the US that they routinely do in the US every day.

          The fact this also creates a problem for Microsoft because it's chosen a particular underlying distribution mechanic to try and sidestep US data laws, and advertises that as a feature, isn't necessarily the US govt's problem.

          Now, if MS isolated those systems so it couldn't be accessed in a way that violated EU data protection laws (i.e. by preventing non-EU employees having direct access to the data) then that's one thing, and they do that for some German located servers which are actually overseen by Deutsche-Telekom - in that case I believe things would be simpler. But hey, like I said, IANAL so corrections welcome...

          But right now MS won't/can't do that for the Irish data servers - I suspect either because that'd limit the ability of the US side to datamine the email, or it's maybe a bit too hard for them to run data centre remotely.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by choose another one on Wednesday October 18 2017, @07:45PM

            by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 18 2017, @07:45PM (#584086)

            For obeying the EU law in an EU country? That'd be much more of a Jurisdictional reach legally speaking. They probably wouldn't be arrested for the same reason you can drink at 18 in the UK and then go back to a US state where the minimum age is 21 without worrying about getting arrested. They're obeying all the laws in the country they're in.

            Doesn't work that way anymore. If an adult in Germany has consensual sex with a 16yr old it is legal (age of consent = 14). Unless they happen to be a US citizen, in which case they have broken US law, in Germany. There are a now a lot of laws like this, the level of jurisdictional "reach" is well established.

            All very true, but that's Microsoft's problem, not the US governments.

            It's everyone's problem, because it means that the jurisdictional overreach noted above has reached the point where someone is being required _by law_ in one jurisdiction to _break_ the law in another. This was probably inevitable when we started getting overreach laws like those above (because other countries' laws were considered "inadequate", as the EU considers US law on DP). It is also inevitable that if it happens to a corporation it will someday happen to a person who can be jailed for contempt (in either of the competing jurisdictions) - because corporations are persons in law anyway (and their officers can be jailed for contempt I think).

            MS knew this was coming and were waiting for it, it is a test case, if they lose it may trigger massive changes in the way multinationals work - contracting out (as per Deutsche-Telekom) or subsidiarity (as per MS Ireland) is of limited use, it is control that is important. Multinationals may move to be headquartered in a "safe" country (that doesn't play this overreach game) with subsidiaries in each other country or trading-bloc with no control relationship at all between them. This is a simple step in the corporate shell game they all play anyway, the interesting thing is that the execs of the top level holding companies will still be targetable so they may have to become faceless. Does a big multinational need a visible CEO these days?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @05:06AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @05:06AM (#585112)

      > Micro$oft Ireland

      Don't you mean "Microsoft Ir€land"?

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:08PM (19 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:08PM (#583665) Journal
    The CCP leaders are anticipating the precedent with glee.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:25PM (2 children)

      by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:25PM (#583673)

      SCOTUS will likely punt on a technicality, while gently encouraging Congress to provide Treaties.

      • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday October 18 2017, @12:03AM

        by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @12:03AM (#583735)

        Hopefully. Because if they really think that the US can demand data from any US-related business anywhere in the world, then presumably they must also be OK with foreign-owned companies in the US shipping data back offshore too.

        Politicians have the latitude to be hypocrites when it comes to foreign relations (or just about anything else really), but do the nation's highest judges have the freedom to do the same? We'll find out soon.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by choose another one on Wednesday October 18 2017, @07:37AM

        by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 18 2017, @07:37AM (#583836)

        The treaties (MLAT) already exist. The US could easily just request the data from Ireland, it either (a) can't be bothered or (b) doesn't want to explain why it wants it to an Irish court, possibly because it is actually just whatever a fishing expedition is termed in EU law.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:31PM (14 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 17 2017, @09:31PM (#583678) Journal

      The CCP leaders are anticipating the precedent with glee.

      Indeed. This is an ugly precedent for the next generation of superpowers. I suspect however, that China or whoever comes next won't have a need for it. They'll just do what they can get away with doing.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:14PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:14PM (#583693)

        They'll just do what they can get away with doing.

        Which is different from the US how exactly?

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:17PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:17PM (#583696)

          China won't bother with a puppet show.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:50PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:50PM (#583706)

            Or a warrant.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:24AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @10:24AM (#583875)

          It is different in scale. By the numbers, China will be a much more imposing superpower, able to get away with much more than USA.

      • (Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:50PM (9 children)

        by Arik (4543) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:50PM (#583705) Journal
        I suspect you are very wrong on that. They'll use precedent to justify their actions at least as much as anyone else. They rarely if ever make moves outside their core interests without some cover.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:09PM (8 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:09PM (#583714) Journal

          They rarely if ever make moves outside their core interests without some cover.

          I don't buy it. Being a superpower is a very strong level of cover in itself.

          • (Score: 1) by Arik on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:41AM (7 children)

            by Arik (4543) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:41AM (#583777) Journal
            There's a difference between a superpower and a hyperpower.

            China is a rising superpower, while the US is a declining hyperpower.

            The US still needs pliant allies all around the world to get its way, and China will be in the same situation for the forseeable future, even after eclipsing us.
            --
            If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:17PM (6 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:17PM (#583916)

              I've never heard the term hyperpower before. What are the distinctions between hyperpower and superpower?

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:45PM (5 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:45PM (#583939) Journal
                Definition [dictionary.com]

                an extremely powerful state that dominates all other states in every sphere of activity

                The US never was that. It's comparable to the EU in terms of economic and R&D activity. And Russia retained its nuclear arsenal so the US never dominated the military side either.

                • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday October 19 2017, @05:41AM (4 children)

                  by Arik (4543) on Thursday October 19 2017, @05:41AM (#584385) Journal
                  The US is not just number 1 on military spending, we've been there a very long time, and we currently spend more than numbers 2 through 9 combined. China is number 2, Russia is a distant third. The Saudis at number 4 field a mercenary army with US arms and instructors. India at 5 is somewhat independent but certainly not unfriendly. France, the UK, and Germany are NATO allies, and Japan might as well be. So in reality the gap is way larger than this comparison would suggest. The US has military bases in every part of the world. The British Empire was something but there's no way it could compete with a worldwide network of airbases supporting nuclear-armed stealth bombers, that level of dominance is another level entirely.

                  The US has been labeled a hyperpower for decades and not just because of that military dominance. English is the international language - and not British English. The cinema in every country screen all the big Hollywood pictures. Television in every country shows US sitcoms. Radio in every country plays hits from the US. PCs in every country are afflicted by Microsoft and Apple. Sure there are other players, there are British bands and German tv shows and India has bollywood and so on but none of them rival that cultural influence.

                  And it's political too, of course. No one has more allies. No one has a larger arms industry. And no one else comes anywhere close in terms of 'military interventions' - what in plain language were once called invasions - around the world.

                  The Chinese are too big for us to hold down in the longterm, economically, and in human terms. But they don't have anywhere near our abilities in so many critical areas to contest that dominance outside their own backyard. They are acutely aware of this and their military strategy is based on it by the way. Russia has been, barely, managing to maintain parity in a few key areas while abandoning hope elsewhere. Both of those nations have military doctrines based around defensive wars fought within their own territory or in areas adjacent to their borders btw. It's the US who openly follows a rather aggressive doctrine sometimes called 'full spectrum dominance' which is based on being willing and able to attack anyone anywhere at any time for any reason.

                  That considered I think 'hyperpower' is not such a bad fit.
                  --
                  If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:34PM (3 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:34PM (#584594) Journal
                    Sorry, but I don't agree that the US has the corresponding military to go with the spending you describe.

                    The US has been labeled a hyperpower for decades and not just because of that military dominance. English is the international language - and not British English. The cinema in every country screen all the big Hollywood pictures. Television in every country shows US sitcoms. Radio in every country plays hits from the US. PCs in every country are afflicted by Microsoft and Apple. Sure there are other players, there are British bands and German tv shows and India has bollywood and so on but none of them rival that cultural influence.

                    Except, of course, when that doesn't happen. And a lot of the above US culture hits are actually foreign owned. Economically, let us remember that the US has operated under significant trade deficits since the 1970s and has huge foreign investments in the economy (around $12 trillion [cnn.com] just for stocks and bonds in 2015).

                    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday October 19 2017, @04:04PM (1 child)

                      by Arik (4543) on Thursday October 19 2017, @04:04PM (#584626) Journal
                      "And a lot of the above US culture hits are actually foreign owned."

                      And this in no way reduces their cultural effect.

                      "Economically, let us remember that the US has operated under significant trade deficits since the 1970s and has huge foreign investments in the economy (around $12 trillion [cnn.com] just for stocks and bonds in 2015)."

                      So what?

                      --
                      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 20 2017, @12:33AM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 20 2017, @12:33AM (#585016) Journal
                        Another problem with the culture argument is that you can say the same thing for European culture and arts. There's nothing analogous to the Grand Tour [wikipedia.org] in the US, for example. And plenty of European arts are global in extent.
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @05:22AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @05:22AM (#585113)

                      > the US has operated under significant trade deficits since the 1970s

                      The ancient Romans called it "tributes."

    • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:26PM

      by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @11:26PM (#583720)

      The best part about extending extraterritoriality reach is how well it interacts with intellectual property and the recent case of Dotcom. Soon enough, you'll have foreign courts confiscating multi billion dollar patents when some US exec fails to appear before them under some trumped-up charges and as such being declared fugitive.

      Crossing finger for Microsoft to lose. Seeing it all collapse will be glorious.

      --
      compiling...
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:16PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:16PM (#583695)

    They treat the bill of rights first...

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by RamiK on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:46PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday October 17 2017, @10:46PM (#583701)

    https://torrentfreak.com/supreme-court-denies-kim-dotcoms-petition-over-seized-millions-171002/ [torrentfreak.com]

    But they're hearing Microsoft? I guess Dotcom failed to lubricate the right cogs.

    --
    compiling...
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @12:03AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @12:03AM (#583734)

    please tell us what restrictions we're about to completely ignore.

    Thanks,

    Your friends in the US intelligence agencies.

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @12:13AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @12:13AM (#583739)

    They select a digital rights case about foreign data, so they can say things about foreign data and let rest of the judiciary misinterpret the ruling and apply it domestically. That way they can be fascist shitbags, and claim that it, "really wasn't what we said", like that fucktard Roberts did after Citizens United v. FEC.

    Split the baby, see which side wins after the fact, and then claim victory. Total coward move. Not that it really matters, They are going to get Andrew Jackson'd no matter what they say. SCOTUS doesn't have enforcement ability, and the other branches don't really give a fuck about SCOTUS anymore.

    They should stop getting to pick their own cases. The Citizens should get a vote on what cases they hear. Because really all I've seen in the past decade is a bunch of lily livered chicken shit over cases cherry picked to slather tainted apologies on bad precedent.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:29AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:29AM (#583752)

      The Supreme Court was added by the Federalists in the waning years of their control of Congress as a way to ensure they had control over the interpretation of laws after they had lost power right?

      The Supreme Court has always been a travesty, like many other facets of the American method of Governance. Sadly righting the ship would require more work than the plebs are willing to put in, whether participation in the political process, vocal appeals to their local representatives, or full out revolution.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:34PM (#583927)

        Things changed after N-day, because it's easier for the average person to understand that major cities became irradiated ruins one morning because they allowed too much power to get in the hands of too few people. Of course, they build their own superstitions around it, however, at least in 2042, those superstitions seem to at least be somewhat more functional.

        The Supreme Court was created in the Constitution of 1787. Are you talking about how the Marshall court [wikipedia.org] (1801-1835) created judicial review?

        One of the most significant periods during the history of the Court was the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall (1801 to 1835). In the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), Marshall held that the Supreme Court could overturn a law passed by Congress if it violated the Constitution, legally cementing the power of judicial review.

        Do you have any good references demonstrating that Marshall was a Federalist? I'd been under the impression that Whigs and Democratic Republicans were the two major parties in that era. Marbury v. Madison was during the Jefferson/Burr (Democratic Republican) administration.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:34AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:34AM (#583755)

    If the court sides with the Department of Justice lawyers in this new case, the government will have unfettered access to the data tech companies store all over the world, provided it has a warrant. During the appeals court case, Microsoft's lawyers argued that the US is essentially trying to say that its laws extend across borders.

    The court will side with the Department of Justice because the USA is no longer a democracy. Instead, we are fast approaching a fascist regime in the US: see The 14 Characteristics of Fascism [ratical.org]. We're not quite there yet, but we're so very, so tantalizingly close... As it stands, we are hitting the following:

    1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: CHECK
    2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: CHECK
    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: CHECK
    4. Supremacy of the Military: CHECK
    5. Rampant Sexism: I wouldn't say 'rampant' at this point
    6. Controlled Mass Media: not yet
    7. Obsession with National Security: CHECK
    8. Religion and Government are Intertwined: CHECK
    9. Corporate Power is Protected: CHECK
    10. Labor Power is Suppressed: CHECK
    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: CHECK
    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment: CHECK
    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: CHECK
    14. Fraudulent Elections: The elections themselves aren't fraudulent, but there's rampant gerrymandering

    So at this point, there's 11 big fat "yep, that's us" right fucking there... The courts (including the SCOTUS) will continue to rule in favor of the Department of JusticeRevenge & Retaliation.

    Welcome to the US of A: the Land of the Free, because we tell you you are free, don't try to think otherwise; and the home of the brave, because it's the other guys that are cowards, not us, using drones and rockets fired and controlled from locations thousands of miles from the war theater... observe our bravery!

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:49AM (7 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:49AM (#583778) Journal

      Basically, you've cited an opinion piece. Which is alright, but there are serious problems with the opinion.

      Nationalism is at very low levels, actually. Sexism seems to favor women at this point in time. The mass part of the media does seem to be controlled by one party. There is no state religion, despite desparate claims to the contrary.

      For the rest of it, you make some of the same observations that people on the right make, then jump to your own conclusions. We're all entitled to our opinions, but citing an opinion piece doesn't make that opinion more valid.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:15AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @11:15AM (#583893)

        Sexism favors women? Sure. That's why they're most of the Fortune 500 CEOs, most of the state governors, most of the state and federal legislators, most of the top judges, most of the billionaires.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:38PM (3 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 18 2017, @01:38PM (#583933) Journal

          You and Google are so very busy, pushing women into STEM and other careers despite what the women might want. Yes, your sexism favors women. You'll give a man the axe, if you can get your quota up a little higher by replacing him with a woman.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:23PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:23PM (#583953)

            And what is wrong with that?

            Woman need to be more involved, and I did my best to encourage that.

                -- H. Weinstein

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 18 2017, @03:00PM (1 child)

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 18 2017, @03:00PM (#583965) Journal

              That's cool and all - but did you ask the women what they want, or what they need?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @08:13PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @08:13PM (#584110)

                Is this a giant whoosh?

        • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:51PM

          by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @02:51PM (#583962) Journal

          This is why kyriarchy is a more functional theory of cultural avenues of power. (Thanks to Azuma for promoting the concept.) As much as I rail at feminists, we must also look behind their power to see the real power backing them. Lo and behold, it's still that old boys' club!

          There is a lot of dysfunction. Women will happily vote for male politicians (even ones who are demonstrably toxic to women and fully intend to erode women's rights) because they believe in the subservience of women. Any more, women are women's greatest enemy, at least as long as democracy lasts and they have the right to vote. Women make authoritarian followers just as well as men do. There's a trick to that, of course. The old boys' club, the Masters of the Universe (who may or may not be lizard people, but certainly people who are experts at using the average slob's lizard brain against her own interests) realized they've got a hell of a thing going on with feminism. Feminism these days is a puppet of the powerful, its efficacy as a cudgel wholly borrowed from its past triumphs when it used to be a movement about equality and empowering those systematically deprived of power.

          Back on the ground, though, it's true that feminists seem to have a reality distortion field that puts the late Steve Jobs to shame! If you were assigned the male gender at birth, no matter your body parts or grey matter physiology requiring advanced technology to reveal, it's best to watch out. Feminists have determined that you're a poisoned M&M. Unfortunately, when a movement determines that an entire demographic are poisoned M&Ms, that means that any hope of equality goes out the window. People in one demographic consistently treat you like shit, see no problems with lying to your face, set you up as a scapegoat time and time again, fuck with your access to basic medical care, etc, etc. Eventually one learns that Schrödinger's rapist is actually a mirror: when one is Schrödinger's rapist, the demographic that seems to consistently hold such toxic views against one becomes Schrödinger's bigot.

          And that doesn't help anyone, not one bit. If I knew how to explain to a bigoted womyn-born-womyn why she's missing the target and not helping empower womyn-born-womyn one damned bit by focusing on just making life difficult for powerless assigned males, I would also have the answer key for disarming the alt-right. That's what modern feminism's become. Though, somebody else came up with something more clever than I ever could given my wordy nature. It's the alt-right and the ctrl-left. Everybody has their alternative, truthy facts.

          tl;dr The captain of the NCC-2000 Excelsior once said, “You're absolutely right. But you're also absolutely wrong.”

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @03:53PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 18 2017, @03:53PM (#583985)

        Nationalism is at very low levels, actually. Sexism seems to favor women at this point in time. The mass part of the media does seem to be controlled by one party. There is no state religion, despite desparate claims to the contrary.

        • Nationalism at a low level? Have you looked around? This country is one of the most nationalist ones out there...
        • Sexism, regardless of which way it sways, is most certainly present. However, as I point out, it is not 'rampant' so it didn't get a check mark
        • The mass media - as much as you and I resent them - is not controlled by a single party. Don't come crying with "but both parties are the same". They are not and you know it. Neither of them are any good, but they most certainly are not the same.
        • No state religion? How many elected officials are out-and-about atheists or Muslims? How does that stack up against the general prevalence of these religions-or-lack-thereof in the general population? How many are non-Christians? FFS, even Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal became 'Christians' so they were electable. Any elected official ending their utterances with "and may god bless the United States of America", clearly intending the Christian god (don't kid yourself), should be a pretty darn good indication that Christianity is the state religion. Same thing with the "so help me god" at the end of your pledge of allegiance (technically optional, I know), which should be another good indication that nationalism is strong here. For all intents and purposes, Christianity is the ordained (pun intended) state religion.

        You are wrong, wrong, wrong. But don't let facts stand in the way of your perceived persecution/world-view.

  • (Score: 2) by gidds on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:50PM

    by gidds (589) on Wednesday October 18 2017, @09:50PM (#584161)

    If my US friends will allow me to riff on a slogan that I believe was once important to them:

        No Revelation Without Representation!

    --
    [sig redacted]
(1)