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This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (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."