Apple Joins Group of Companies Supporting Google in Foreign Email Privacy Case

[macs4nw]

That's a pretty dystopian picture you painted. Worthy of a politician ratcheting up the fear level. The only thing missing is a nod to the children. We have actively and successfully fought crime and terrorism for a very long time without giving up freedoms. Have we totally eradicated either? Nope. Will we ever? Nope... not as long as humans are involved. Would giving up personal freedoms aid in that eradicaton? Nope. Nope. Aaaaaaaaaand nope.

This case has nothing to do with picture you painted. The government may want people to think it does, cuz trigger words like terrorism seem to make a certain segment of our society lose all common sense.

I agree. What in the past was simply a criminal act has become TERRORISM which is somehow more dangerous.

I'm also not ready to trade any rights or freedoms for increased security. My perhaps not adequately communicated point is, current and evolving digital tech is enabling a whole new class of criminals and terrorists to very effectively conceal their activities from prying eyes, allowing them much greater opportunities to commit their frauds and plan their destructive havoc on a non-suspecting public, than ever before.

My sense is that to counteract this whole new reality in criminal enablement, a new approach may be required that involves international cooperation, as these are crimes that are planned and executed across continents and local boundaries. This does not necessarily mean having to give up rights and freedoms as long as we as citizens remain vigilant about steadfastly opposing any measures that would impinge upon said constitutional rights.

The 'dystopian picture' you referred to was the second point of my 'rant' which is not something our generation will have to deal with, but rather an opinion of where we as citizens of the world may be headed in the far-off future.

Didn't mean to traumatize anyone with horrific scenarios of future-shock.

 

[jlc1978]

My sense is that to counteract this whole new reality in criminal enablement, a new approach may be required that involves international cooperation, as these are crimes that are planned and executed across continents and local boundaries. This does not necessarily mean having to give up rights and freedoms as long as we as citizens remain vigilant about steadfastly opposing any measures that would impinge upon said constitutional rights.

It sounds like we are in agreement. Terrorism transcends borders and needs to be dealt with accordingly; and that can be done without trampling people's rights. Part of the problem is, IMHO, the loose use of the word which masks the real threats while overplaying minor ones.

 

[69Mustang]

Because they do. Take bribery, for instance, which may be perfectly legal in a country but if a US company does it they can be prosecuted under US law even if they do it overseas.

Those who break those US laws are prosecuted in the US. And as it relates to this case, it's a US prosecution that is attempting to possibly circumvent laws about data residing in another country. If evidence resides in another country, we already have tried and true avenues to obtain that information.

Tax laws are even more powerful - if you are a US citizen you must pay US tax on all income no matter where earned, even if you never set foot in the US.

Only you bring that money back to the US. Otherwise, until the law changes, you can let your money sit overseas with no penalty. You also have to pay tax in the countries of operation. If you don't, you can be prosecuted in that country under their laws not US law. Same goes for any other crime.

BU has an example of laws US companies and citizens must follow even when doing business outside the US. The bank reporting laws in particular have become troublesome to the point some banks will not open an account for a US citizen, even though it is perfectly legal of them to so do.

In the example from BU the first sentence states: In addition to laws in the host country, some US laws govern the conduct of activities in foreign countries. That means you must follow the laws in the country of operation and as a US company here are some things that remain illegal. A lot of what you've mentioned is covered under a section of law that we haven't touched on: international law.

As I have said, it's not as simple as it seems. You and I can agree with the idea that US laws shouldn't apply abroad but the US government clearly thinks at least some do and is willing to enforce them.

The US laws that companies are subject to overseas don't require companies to break the law in those countries. The request in this case could possibly do that. It may no be as simple as it seems, but it's definitely not that hard either.

 

[jlc1978]

Those who break those US laws are prosecuted in the US. And as it relates to this case, it's a US prosecution that is attempting to possibly circumvent laws about data residing in another country. If evidence resides in another country, we already have tried and true avenues to obtain that information.

I agree, and would want US LEOs to use them; but that doesn't mean they have to.

Only you bring that money back to the US. Otherwise, until the law changes, you can let your money sit overseas with no penalty. You also have to pay tax in the countries of operation. If you don't, you can be prosecuted in that country under their laws not US law. Same goes for any other crime.

Uh, no. The US is a unitary tax state, so as a US citizen all money is taxed in the US, whether or not it is brought into the US. And while you may, depending on the law, be subject to local taxation as well that, at least when I was in such a situation, was credited to your US tax owed. Corporate earnings are a bit more complex because of corporate structures set up to minimize taxation.

In the example from BU the first sentence states: In addition to laws in the host country, some US laws govern the conduct of activities in foreign countries. That means you must follow the laws in the country of operation and as a US company here are some things that remain illegal. A lot of what you've mentioned is covered under a section of law that we haven't touched on: international law.

Actually, those are examples of US laws that govern US citizens and companies operating overseas regardless of the local laws. I pointed them out because you incorrectly claimed in response to "A US company has to follow US law, even when doing business overseas." that "That's wrong." It isn't international law but US laws that govern conduct of US citizens and corporations. International law governs relationships between nations.

The US laws that companies are subject to overseas don't require companies to break the law in those countries. The request in this case could possibly do that. It may no be as simple as it seems, but it's definitely not that hard either.

Nonetheless, a US court can rule that a US company has to comply with US law even if it would violate foreign laws. Even the Supreme Court has said it is OK to do so.

 

[bobdobalina]

edit