Foreign Data Unsafe From US Patriot Act, Says American Law Firm 328
natecochrane writes "A prestigious law firm warns non-U.S. businesses their data is unsafe from costly and invasive raids by American law enforcement even if they host their data in their own countries. The wide interpretation of the USA Patriot Act ensures U.S. cops can legally demand data from almost anyone, anywhere for any reason and countries and their citizens are largely powerless to resist. The advice has resonance with the arrest this week of Kim 'Dotcom' on alleged copyright violations in the U.S."
legally demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that demand doesn't need to be answered.
^^This^^
Other governments do not have to bow down to every 'request' and demand of the United States.
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately for people in the UK our Conservative/Liberal government are a gang of spineless puppets who do whatever their US masters tell them. As were the previous Labour government.
I have to wonder if a desire to suck US cock is a requirement to get into politics in this country?..
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Insightful)
No, our current group are bound by a one sided legal treaty signed in by Labour. The current group are looking for a way to end the agreement legally (as it's not great for business; I suspect citizens are an also ran, but useful flag to wave).
That's the thing with international law and diplomacy, you can't easily turn around and say "We don't like it anymore, so screw you". Well, not without screwing up your international reputation and ability to strike future agreements. It needs to be done carefully.
Re: (Score:3)
No, our current group are bound by a one sided legal treaty signed in by Labour. The current group are looking for a way to end the agreement legally (as it's not great for business; I suspect citizens are an also ran, but useful flag to wave).
That's the thing with international law and diplomacy, you can't easily turn around and say "We don't like it anymore, so screw you". Well, not without screwing up your international reputation and ability to strike future agreements. It needs to be done carefully.
Doesn't the UK regularly refuse to extradite accused criminals that may be subject to capital punishment in the US and other countries? They refuse US demands when they want to and in this case, it looks like they just don't want to.
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The law broken must exist, or have an equivalent, in the extraditing country. Hence Canada won't extradite draft dodgers to the USA
The evidence presented must be sufficient to secure a trial - you can't just give a name and crime and expect to extradite someone
The punishment if the person is found guilty must be within what the extraditing country would find reasonable. Thus any country without capital punishment will get assurances not to seek the death penalty b
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Informative)
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a perfectly legal way to do that. The UK Foreign Secretary, William Hague writes a formal statement of repudiation and submits it to the US and the UN. After six months the treaty is nullified.
Countries aren't bound by treaties until the sun explodes.
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Insightful)
It's funny that U.S. conservatives complain about International law being applied in the U.S. and that those people are against a N.W.O. when it seems like the U.S. is leading the charge on forcing its laws on other countries as it sees fit. All the people with "U.S. out of the U.N. now" signs have no clue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Insightful"? Really? The patriot act is about the LEAST CONSERVATIVE piece of legislation ever enacted - just because all our politicians are corrupt money grubbing opinion whores and they claim to be on one side or another does not make them so. Vote Ron Paul for fucks' sake, he's the only politician in the running that doesn't entertain lobbyists - then you will see what comes from an actual conservative.
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatism is about stopping the advancement of progressiveness and liberty, or in extreme cases, to roll it back.
The police state is the ultimate conservative institution. And the Patriot Act is one of the police states most powerful weapons.
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Insightful)
You had me up to "liberty". Conservatism seems to like the idea of "liberty". They're not so big on "liberal" or "libertine", which are similar sounding, but mean different things.
Wasn't most of the crap in the Patriot Act dealing with data written by John Kerry, a liberal democrat (who was, admittedly, also an ex-prosecutor who was trying to make other prosecutors' jobs easier)?
Re:legally demand (Score:4, Informative)
There are no liberal democrats, only democrats slightly less conservative than the average republican.
Re: (Score:3)
There are no liberal democrats, only democrats slightly less conservative than the average republican.
This idea that Obama administration is conservative stems from the fact that it isnt very liberal, but if you are actually paying attention you see that its more fascist than anything.. certainly not conservative by any real measure other than that "not liberal" canard.
Re:legally demand (Score:4)
How exactly was Hitler progressive?
Exterminating jews, gypsies and homosexuals is not progressive.
Waging a war of conquest is not progressive.
The economic aspects of his rule promoted monopolies and collusion, that is not progressive.
The dissolution of his senate was not progressive.
Assuming absolute control of the government was not progressive.
Re: (Score:3)
Somewhat, but communism as practiced in Soviet Russia wasn't actually communism. Stalins "communism" was a lie he told his own people, he was pure authoritarian and very anti-liberal.
The communist ideal has some liberal elements, in that a society that provides everyone's needs removes certain existential threats to the expression of liberty.
However, in practice it is as ineffective as libertarianism. Libertarianism does not provide sufficient incentive to not infringing on others rights, communism does not
Re: (Score:3)
In what way does libertarianism not protect your rights?
Like this:
A. All healthcare should be provided by private business.
B. All businesses have a right to operate without interference from the government.
C. Therefore, all businesses have an absolute right to do business with anyone they want and only those whom they want.
D. Therefore, any provider or insurance company has the right to deny you healthcare based on your race.
Re:legally demand (Score:4, Interesting)
communism does not provide sufficient incentive to the individual to contribute to the public good.
Star Trek is the endgame of a socialist/communist utopia.
When you never have to worry about food, housing, medical care, education, and entertainment, then the only things you have to do are either sit on your ass, explore the human condition (through philosophy, art, etc.), or contribute to the human race as a whole.
The thing a lot of people don't get is that in such a perfect society, you don't need an incentive. There's no need for currency or anything of the like because you are taken care of. Therefore there is no need to work (how many of us would quit our jobs if we hit the lotto?). Since you don't have to work, you would probably pursue something.
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Insightful)
If conservatives are so pro-liberty, why are they so against things like gay rights and gay marriage? Surely a fundamental part of liberty is being allowed to choose who you want to love and marry?
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Informative)
Conservatism is about stopping the advancement of progressiveness and liberty, or in extreme cases, to roll it back.
Ah, nope! Might wanna consult a dictionary on that one.
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.
So by definition, conservatives are opposed to new laws that infringe on existing liberties. Actually, they are opposed to new laws in general.
P.S. Most of the so-called "conservatives" in the US government aren't really conservative.
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Interesting)
How can you be against liberalism but want liberty? The two are fundamentally and irrevocably intertwined by definition.
You have no idea what liberal and progressive mean, at all. It has absolutely nothing to do with the size of government, only its quality. Right now we have a large, corrupt, and malignant government. We can improve it by excising the fascist and conservative aspects and have a smaller more liberal government. Or we can try to add to it laws that protect and empower the citizens and have a larger more liberal government.
A liberal values liberty, that is it.
A progressive seeks progress, the advancement of liberty, a more perfect nation that protects and empowers its citizens liberty.
Law is not the loss of liberty. Murder being illegal removes your license to kill indiscriminately, but it also grants you the freedom to know that you it is very unlikely that someone will kill you.
Libertarians and liberals are very similar. The difference is that libertarians do not believe that freedom and liberty can be increased by regulation and would prefer to live lawlessly where they would be free to exercise personal liberty at the expense of others. They would rather have license to pour poison into the drinking water and kill thousands of people than be encumbered by a little environmental, health or safety regulation.
Re: (Score:3)
The labels are just what they want people to think they are instead of what they really are. Thus you get outright colonial monarchists that just want a local aristocracy that they can belong to instead of a British one call
Re:Yes, insightful, you pedant. 1984! (Score:3)
You took the dictionary meaning of the word, when gp post was talking more about the label. Politics is all about corrupting the meaning of words so they don't apply any more. Orwell taught us that, if you didn't learn it anywhere else.
"U.S. conservatives" are more than happy with this type of thing. Looking at voting history, the "U.S. conservatives" typically vote for such things en masse, with maybe a few consistent dissenters like Ron Paul. The liberals vote for it too, but support is more spotty an
Re:legally demand (Score:4, Insightful)
All the people with "U.S. out of the U.N. now" signs have no clue.
Of course they don't. They will never hear about this. Why? Because the pundits they watch and listen to will never mention this.
And in the meantime, all they hear is how America is exceptional, we're on top and will always be there, and anyone who criticizes America hates it, yadda yadda yadda.
They also hear distortions and lies about what is being done like The UN Gun Ban Treaty [factcheck.org] that Obama is going to use to take our guns away!
No one seems to bother to check the facts. They watch or listen to some overpaid mouthpeice whose job is to scare the shit out of them so that these spewers of nonsense can get rating to justify their seven figure or more salary.
It's hard though. There is sooo much information being thrown at us, how can a normal person check up on everything? You have to work 8+ hours a day, take care of your chores, exervise (I hope!), eat, connect with friends and family, etc ... and check up on those liars?
The easiest thing to do is turn off the TV and most radio.
The Economist and NPR seem to be the last reliable newssources left on the planet.
Funny? How so? (Score:3, Informative)
Pax Romana's a bitch, but not if you're Rome.
Re: (Score:3)
Battered liberal syndrome?
Re:legally demand (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's a joke that you call your current office 'liberal'.
The fact that our liberal party is run by fascists doesnt change the fact that they are our liberals. We dont have a party that is more liberal.
Re:legally demand (Score:4, Insightful)
We dont have a party that is more liberal.
Yes. This is what we call a "defect".
Re: (Score:3)
I think it's a joke that you call your current office 'liberal'.
The fact that our liberal party is run by fascists doesnt change the fact that they are our liberals. We dont have a party that is more liberal.
I'm sure you do, it's just that no one votes for them.
Re: (Score:3)
Ofc, that's just "good business", force your own laws to others, but cry foul if they try to do the same, little by little creep more power over others while giving none to them. Makes tons of sense.
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Funny)
I didn't. I dont think anyone I ever voted for has actually made it into office.
They said that if I voted for John McCain that the administration would give trillions of dollars to corporations and special interests.
They were right. I did vote for John McCain and the administration did give trillions of dollars to corporations and special interests. Damn you Democrats for being right!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Informative)
They are free to ignore the demands, true.
The article, however, spoke of the conflict of IT companies that had interests in the U.S., who may be forced to obey U.S. law. Specifically, the story is about the privacy commissioner of my province (Alberta) recommending that our government only use companies with no U.S. connections to guarantee the privacy of the data.
That means no American companies, no outsourcing to the U.S., and no data storage in the United States. The U.S. are international lepers in the privacy world and should be avoided at all costs.
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Interesting)
That means no American companies, no outsourcing to the U.S., and no data storage in the United States. The U.S. are international lepers in the privacy world and should be avoided at all costs.
Unfortunately, even this is not enough. The non-US company would have to ensure any and all contact with the US is prevented, to ensure that there is not even a crack of a sliver of the door to US jurisdiction.
The way they got a porno director here in the US who operated in California, was to order his product in Georgia and have them ship it there. BAM! Georgia claims jurisdiction and the guy goes to jail.
In fact, one of the wedges used to argue for jurisdiction over megauploads, was that they used PayPal. So, now you can't deal with USD, nor can you particularly even do business with American companies. That cuts out a lot of business, and every multinational company.
The world is getting so small now, that it will be impossible for any company or business person to ever manage to keep out from the from the ever expanding abuse of jurisdiction that the US is applying.
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Informative)
This is par for the course in international business. I work for a Fortune 20 Or Less company, and we have data centers all around the world specifically to accomodate contractual language such as this. Support teams are made up of people from different countries to ensure we can meet the requirement of who can and cannot see the data.
Each country is organized as its own subsidiary. This was probably expensive, but we can say "Go talk to the subsidiary in that country" because we don't have the data. International law is tricky, and you can be sure there are some very weasly lawyers at the top making sure everything is deniable.
Short version, yes it's possible, but you have to organize things correctly. The whole point of the article is that it's easy to miss something and there goes your privacy.
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Insightful)
They are free to ignore the demands, true.
The article, however, spoke of the conflict of IT companies that had interests in the U.S., who may be forced to obey U.S. law. Specifically, the story is about the privacy commissioner of my province (Alberta) recommending that our government only use companies with no U.S. connections to guarantee the privacy of the data.
That means no American companies, no outsourcing to the U.S., and no data storage in the United States. The U.S. are international lepers in the privacy world and should be avoided at all costs.
If the person in question is not a US citizen and not in the US, then it is ultimately up to her or his country of citizenship and country where they are located if any state cooperation is given at all.
Sovereignty does have a few perks.
Re:legally demand (Score:5, Insightful)
They are free to ignore the demands, true.
The article, however, spoke of the conflict of IT companies that had interests in the U.S., who may be forced to obey U.S. law. Specifically, the story is about the privacy commissioner of my province (Alberta) recommending that our government only use companies with no U.S. connections to guarantee the privacy of the data.
That means no American companies, no outsourcing to the U.S., and no data storage in the United States. The U.S. are international lepers in the privacy world and should be avoided at all costs.
If the person in question is not a US citizen and not in the US, then it is ultimately up to her or his country of citizenship and country where they are located if any state cooperation is given at all.
Sovereignty does have a few perks.
It should also be noted that Megaupload (to take a recent) had US-based servers and bank accounts. These (IMHO) are fair game for the US government. They also generally were accessed by a .com domain, which is managed by a US-based company (would have been prudent to have .co, .eu, .co.uk, etc., addresses as well).
However, extraditing him shouldn't be done, as he broke no law in the country he was in AFAIK. If they do extradite him, they'll also (logically speaking) have to extradite journalists who report on China if Beijing asks--even if the reporter/s in question wrote their stories in New Zealand. It's a dangerous precedent to allow this to happen, as simple "access to bits" is not an really appropriate in the networked age.
The only time that an extradition could be allowed would be in the case of crackers who went into remote systems of another country, as they were specifically "trespassing" the systems (though not physically). Though they could also be prosecuted locally since most countries have cyber-laws that deal with this as well.
Re:unrelated argument, Chewbacca Defense (Score:3)
Why are you talking about people? It's irrelevant. I don't think you know what topic we're on. If a company blurs the lines of operation such that some work is done in the United States, US law applies where that line is crossed.
If you use an Australian company that houses e-mail in a Gmail server in the US, that e-mail can be snooped. Even if no one from the US is administering that server, its physical presence is what determines the law, not the person doing the work, or which company owns it.
This is
Re:legally demand (Score:4, Insightful)
Things tend to happen to governments which ignore such demands. Just ask the Spaniards.
Re:legally demand (Score:4, Informative)
I could go on, but why bother?
In fairness, (Score:4, Funny)
nobody expected the Spanish opposition.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So far, it has been the policy of at least European Union, to turn around, unbuckle, and bend over.
You want the lunch choices of our citizens flying towards your country, 3 days in advance? No problem! We'll even pick up the tab. To demand the same from them? Unreasonable
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, yes, only dirty Brits, I mean communists, sorry wrong era again, reverse-Americanized-Euroized-socialists-Islamo-Fascistic-Chinese-double-agent-super-terrorists-Illegal-Immigrant-Emigrants wouldn't comply.
Perhaps we should conduct a raid to find some evidence we can use to get a warrant to justify the raid to have you detained indefinitely?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that demand doesn't need to be answered.
The country doesn't need to respond to the legal demand. But if you're a business in a country which bends over to the USA, then it's not up to you. Since much of the data gathering and transfer is carried out in secret, those businesses need to be warned so they can encrypt their data and choose where, when and what to put online.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, the demand will be answered - just not in the way you're thinking of.
Who's going to answer? The businesses that are going to move out of the US and/or away from it before this comes around, so that they can ignore the demand.
Good job USA. We've once again shown why people shouldn't have any desire to do business with us.
Cuts both ways (Score:3)
We are involved in an 'outsourced email' discussion, and some companies (ie: G-something) say, quite literally, "we can't tell you what countries your data will be in, only which ones it won't be in". When pressed on how they come up with that, they say "well, it's not in the ones where we don't have datacenters".
Other companies (ie: M-something) have ITAR certified solutions that assure you it's US datacenters and US citizens.
I can understand
Copyright now? (Score:2)
The advice has resonance with the arrest this week of Kim 'Dotcom' on alleged copyright violations in the U.S.
Except that, AFAIK, the Patriot Act doesn't have anything to do with Copyright. Or was it amended?
Re: (Score:3)
That depends, one of the charges against him was money laundering, if said laundering was used to fund terrorism (yes, that is a huge stretch by any imagination...), the Patriot act would apply...
Law enforcement (Federal and Local) have been known to stretch the facts to get what they want though...
Re: (Score:2)
You man the U.S. sues him for violating their Copyright by illegally sharing money with other people?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using what warrant? Standard crimes must be dealt with in the normal fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
Rape Whistle (Score:5, Funny)
"countries and their citizens are largely powerless to resist"
They need a nation-sized Rape-aXe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-rape_device#Rape-aXe [wikipedia.org]
Re:Rape Whistle (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, It's called "having nukes".
The various North Korean and Iranian despots are well aware of this fact.
Re:Rape Whistle (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a case where simply saying "No" would actually work. Try it, "No, you may not have the data."
See, very simple. No need for weapons or belligerence.
Very nice, until you suddenly find that your company's operations in the USA have been closed down, or all your money in US-controlled banks has been frozen. That no one who has ever met you, or any of your family, or anyone with the same initials as you, is allowed to enter the USA or any of its widespread dominions. That no US-based corporation (or corporation that ever hopes to do any business in the USA, or with US-based corporations) will give you the time of day. That all your communications may be tapped, and diligently searched for the slightest excuse to harass or prosecute you for further alleged wrongdoing. That no one will hire you. That other governments hoping for favour from Washington (i.e. all governments except perhaps Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea) will presently follow suit. And on, and on, and on.
Oh, and you may unexpectedly find yourself being extradited to Sweden on multiple charges of aggravated rape.
expanding FATCA (Score:2)
Powerless, my backside (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes the US is screwed up but Europe is just as screwed up too in their laws.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, laws like that are designed specifically to prevent another rise of the far right.
Re: (Score:3)
How does banning the burqa block the rise of the far right?
it's the same one that bans the use of the swastika, designed to stop the fanatical (not necessarily far-right politically, but far-to-the-right-of-intelligence for sure) groups from subverting the common law for their own nefarious purposes.
The burqa issue is less one of free right to dress like you want, and more to prevent forcing of that dress on people. The French state doesn't really care what you wear, but the groups that promote the burqa do
Re:Powerless, my backside (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. This has nothing to do with conviction/belief, but with too many girls and women forced to wear the burka by their (male) family (members). They get killed for not obeying to their demands. This is to protect those girls and women who want to execute their freedom rights.
Alarmist (Score:2)
The US also has the power to launch one thousand nukes and wreak devastation across the globe. Why aren't we writing articles about that?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> "Seized data in the last week or so"
LOL! Why don't people realise that in *every* modern country *all* traffic is currently being monitored by the FBI. The US has used trade treaties and agreements to have "Lawful Intercept" (now there's a misnomer if ever there was one) equipment in the ISPs of all its trading partners. This can be used to watch packets flying around the world in real time (oops, still believe TOR can't be defeated?). The Lawful Intercept installations are recent, but the ECHELON n
Re: (Score:2)
Smells like hyperbole (Score:3)
So if US cops "demands" Iran hand over the details of their nuclear scientist's e-mail traffic it is just going to happen?
I call bullshit. The only reason they'd be able to acquire such data would be if the host country agreed to let it happen. That would be a problem with the host country's lack of privacy protection for their own citizens, and has little to do with the patriot act itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like the issue is foreign businesses, not foreign governments. If the businesses fought tooth and nail and could convince their government to take a stand, then there is likely going to be some pushback. Now, getting the businesses government to care will take quite some time, and likely some egregious action by the US, or things will just get pushed under the rug. The businesses that refuse will suffer by not being allowed into the US market.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? How they could harass for example Germany if it refused to bow to such demands? Please keep hyperbole at home. Yes, US laws are overreaching, stupid and borders with control freakism at it's best. Yes, they are trying to push several laws very strongly (*caugh*Intelectual "property"*caugh*). No, they can't get everything unless address country decides to give them.
America, f*** yeah! (Score:5, Funny)
Team America: World Police
Intended as satire. Used instead as guidebook.
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY (Score:2)
"US cops can legally demand data from almost anyone, anywhere for any reason and countries and their citizens are largely powerless to resist"
US can demand anything from almost anyone, anywhere for any reason and countries and their citizens are powerless to resist
Governments are inherently evil (Score:3, Insightful)
The real State of the Union is very weak. The US debt is bigger than ever, the liberties of people are weaker than ever, the government is more powerful in terms of what it can do to individuals (and even citizens of other countries) than ever.
The economy of USA (and Europe) are weak and getting weaker, the inflation is higher and getting higher, the wars are long and getting longer, the corruption - meddling of government in business and as a corollary meddling of business in government is enormous. Iran and India are now trading oil for gold, and in USA people who show the obvious illegitimacy of government power are thrown to jail - political [slashdot.org] prisoners [wikipedia.org].
Do not forget. [slashdot.org]
Government is supposed to be there to protect your liberties and freedoms, but this does not mean to protect your liberties and freedoms against other non-government civilians.
Government is inherently evil, but it must exist to occupy the space where otherwise the evil would exist that didn't have public legitimacy on its side.
The point of government is to exist to occupy space of where the inherent evil lives and to protect the individuals from the inherent evil that occupies that space. Now, whether it is realistic to expect some entity to occupy space of evil and not turn evil itself ... (and my argument goes further, but I am not going there in this discussion), but basically government exists to protect people FROM ITSELF.
It is the government force that we are all vulnerable to. Other individuals and companies - that's a private matter.
Now governments failed people completely, including the court system, the Supreme Court in USA as well, so this just shows how inherent the evil is and how it permeates into whatever entity that is occupying that space.
But the Constitution is law above government, and government broke that law long ago and it continues to brake it every day. Government protecting people from government does not mean that government must protect people from other people.
The theory of government and understanding of government is completely flawed.
The system that exists to supposedly protect people from crime should not be the same and must not be conspiring with the system that exists to occupy the space of evil government power.
Once you mix together the system of government, which is supposed to provide you with freedoms from itself, and you mix it with system that may be set up to provide you with security from other individuals, you end up with a government system that has the tools and the will to destroy your liberties.
The separation of power (legislative, judicial, executive) in government is not done correctly and that's where the fault in current government theory shows itself.
Re: (Score:3)
The US debt is 100% denominated in a fiat currency 100% under the control of the government. You use the debt to argue government weakness in a profound sense.
- what a wonderful argument.
It's false of-course. It doesn't matter what the debt is 'denominated' in, what matters is that it can never be repaid in anything worth anything. Printing currency is not the same as doing productive work to give back anything of value, of-course that will never be done. But it's not the creditors who have worthless dollars in their hands that will suffer the most, it's US population, because it will find out what it's like not to be able to buy anything from anybody abroad for
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it does. Owing 1 billion corn flakes is less debt than owing a billion bars of gold. The rest of your stuff is about inflation. The government can do what they want with currency, like create a new one for the population.
- you don't understand something. It's not what government declares to be currency/money that is important. What is important what people think is money.
That's why there is no investment in USA anymore, as government prints dollars, nobody who has real savings wants to hold it in dollars, they are saving/investing in other countries, where they see better money, and many have gone into commodities not for speculation.
It's NOT uncertainty that drives investors, it's CERTAINTY that US dollar is gone.
A currency account surplus is the flip side of a trade deficit. What you seem to mean by "productive" was we were a net exporter then. Yes we were. And if our currency drops like a stone as you predict above we'll be a net exporter again
- Of
Re: (Score:3)
First off the US is a net importer. There is an investment in US bonds. If we were net exporting, like we were in the 1960s then you could argue that people aren't investing here.
- this is 100% backwards.
People used to invest in USA before the money started losing all that value (especially after 1971) and all the real investments were leaving for other countries.
Buying bonds does not mean investing, as I said: Fed gives discount window price of 0 to the bailed out banks, who are all insolvent the moment interest rates go up, because they turn around and buy US Treasury debt at somewhere between 2 and 3%.
The fact is people are perfectly content to invest, about $2b a day per day every day in the USA. That's why we are having such a large trade problem. People need to export to us to get the currency to invest here.
- do you even understand that there is nothing new being built in USA? Invest
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
the USA is good at bullying weak nations (Score:2)
It all boils down to the war. (Score:3)
The patriot act and all these powers were granted to the government to fight the war... to hunt down the terrorists and snuff them out. That was the point.
To that end, I don't think many people would have a problem with the powers IF they used them expressly for that purpose and no other. Sadly, government being run by people and people being people... the power is abused... frequently. My favorite is the guy that got his ex-wife on a terror/no-fly list so she couldn't fly out of town. There are other examples but few are that petty.
The patriot act needs to be rescinded. It has done most of the work it was put in place to do in the first place. We're pulling our troops back... it's time to retire the act. By all means, let the CIA still go hunting for bad guys. It was foolish ever to chain them. That didn't happen until the Clinton Administration and that point is by some credited as being one of the things that allowed 9/11 to happen in the first place. But the legal authorities granted by the patriot act beyond letting the CIA do it's job should be retired.
As to data not being legally safe in other countries... US law has no effect on foreign countries. They don't have to comply unless they wish to comply. In which case it has more to do with what those countries wish then the US.
Really, if you're afraid for your data... fear the NSA... they don't bother with warrants and never have... not their game. They get the information because they can not because they have a right. I don't especially fear them though... they're always after bigger fish then little ol' me.
Business Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Business Opportunity (Score:5, Insightful)
Two words Julian Assange ...No US server, no connections to US companies, all hosted in US unfriendly countries ...
He tried this, and look what happened ...
Re: (Score:3)
He got a talk show?
Re: (Score:3)
USA is THE bully... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, TFA is right. Look at what we did with Spain. Look at what were pressuring Canada into doing.
"Nice X ya got there, it'd be a shame if Y were to happen to it."
Why blow someone up, then they can't make you money. Duh.
This Service Not Available In Your Country (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear American User:
We are very sorry, but your government is behaving like a spoiled child that thinks it can get it's way by screaming and kicking it's feet. While normally we would not be terribly concerned by this childish display, we are annoyed that you, the parents, are not doing anything to bring them under control.
As a result, you will not be permitted to utilize our service until you rein in your spoiled brat government and teach them proper manners, and how to act like a world citizen.
Thank you.
"Name of Service"
Pedantict, but GET THE NAME RIGHT! (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's be sure to always write it PATRIOT so people know it's a acronym and hopefully ask questions. Seems like every bill is given a nifty acronym or backronym, usually with the intent of glossing over how horrid these bills are. I could propose a "Cats Underwater Teeth Extraction" bill, and call it the "CUTE" bill and nobody would be the wiser. You wouldn't vote against something "Cute" would you?
Worse is the more common case; the actual bill title seems perversely the opposite of what the bill accomplishes. "Clear Skies Initiative/Act", anyone?
Treaties Are A Two Way Street (Score:3)
While the US is out and about signing treaties and agreements with foreign governments that allow us to seize foreign files and evidence you can bet that we are giving other nations the right to do the same within the US. If that were not true we could never get them to sign those treaties and agreements. One issue where this has come to light in the past is in outrageous and deliderate gouging on international phone calls. You make a call to a nation in Africa for twelve minutes and get a phone bill with $3,000 for that one call. You refuse to pay and your local phone company gets involved and cuts you off as they are forced to honor reciprical arrangements.
No treaty or agreement should have any effect upon US citizens within our own borders.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why does a bully have power over others? Because others don't put up a fight.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does a bully have power over others? Because others don't put up a fight.
It's a bit more than that.
The other kids in the playground can easily beat the snot out of the bully if they cooperate.
However, each and every one of them secretly dreams of being a bully himself, so they try to get on the bully's best side by being his toadies.
Re: (Score:2)
This is complete speculation... but I suspect it has alot to do with money, or rather the requirements and policies the US puts on other countries to trade with the US.
Everyone hates the US blah blah blah, is a sentiment of the populations, however, the governments of those same countries (with the exception of a few like Iran, Venezuela, cuba etc) all want to be in the US governments good graces, and will in many cases give up way to much power to the US to remain in the US's good graces..
Re: (Score:3)
US have nukes. Lots of then.
Re:Legality? (Score:5, Insightful)
so does Russia, Britain, France, Israel and North Korea. they don't go around insisting that their laws apply to foreign firms with foreign data in foreign sovereignties.
the US is just lost the plot on internationalisation - they might have realised there are places outside the US borders, now they need to understand that those places *aren't* America.
I swear most of America's politicians and lawyers are about as mature as a 6 year old - not yet understanding that the world consists of people other than themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually both France and Germany have tried to apply their hate crime statutes to business and organizations in the United States. Virtually every country in the world has aimed to apply their gun control laws in the United States. Israel was decades ago one of the main proponents of universal jurisdiction.
The US is not alone in wanting
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's up to the people of some country to make sure they have leaders in place that recognize that their country's laws (and enforcement thereof) should come from the people of that country, not from cronies of another.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
When they have to promote something by putting the identification of certain aspects in the name, then we know the actual thing has no such aspects. There is no patriotism in the so-called patriot act.