Our government has jurisdiction over its citizens, and businesses that operate within its borders.
Basically, what you're saying is that you think that if someone on US soil does something illegal, and hides the evidence offshore, the government shouldn't be able to get to said evidence without jumping through a crapton of legal hoops?
A formal specification is a specification done in a formal specification language. There is no other meaning of that term.
What, there are language specs that don't have an EBNF or similar for valid statements in the language? Seems odd.
theory, you could check a formal specification for soundness using an automated theorem prover
Ooh, sounds magical. Let me know when you find a theorem prover that is (even "in theory") complete and consistent (and runs in finite time).
Then I would say, if China has evidence that the Chinese Google office has done illegal things in their country, and hidden the evidence on US servers, then yea, they should be able to get a warrant for that information, and vice versa.
This is like if you to go to a country border to talk with a friend you have at the other side. Each one will stay in their corresponding country without breaking any immigration law, but you can talk through the fences (the air is not restricted to one particular country
No, it's like if you take a bunch of information to a country border and hand it off to someone on the other side.
Now, say that information you passed to the foreign national was stolen nuclear launch codes, or a list of where you hid the bodies. Do you really think the government should not be able to get a warrant for that information, just because it's not on US soil anymore?
OK, thought of a good counter analogy:
- You've hidden bombs on public transit all over the country, and the list of where you hid them is stored on a server in the UK; should the government be able to get a warrant for that information?
And a not so appropriate, yet still thought provoking one:
- You're a serial killer in the US, but every time you murder someone you drive to your Canadian cabin in the woods to hide the body; should the US be able to get search warrants for said cabin?
I get that you're saying "but I really don't like that speech a lot". Do you get that I utterly reject that as a reason for censorship? There no need for any protection of acceptable speech: "freedom of speech" means "freedom of unacceptable speech", or it means nothing.
. We need to find a way to balance these concerns with Freedom of Speech.
Spoken like every dictator and totalitarian throughout history. Liberty is more important than security - or at least that's the point of America, much as we struggle with it. Too much of the world is still places where there's only "freedom of wise-man-approved" speech, if that's what you prefer.
But when they're owned by 5 media companies, all of which are in turn owned by rich media barons, they tend to walk the party line.
We got there because of decades of people systematically giving their money to the most sensational press, which enabled them to become more powerful. It's not something that just happened.
I think that there probably oughta be a law that you can't knowingly tell an outright lie and call it news, but even that seems to be a minority view, which is just another symptom of the same damned need for entertainment.
Is Google a Chinese company?
It's all well and good so long as the USA don't mind, say, a Russian court issuing a warrant for data held on servers in the USA.
There's nothing wrong with that, so long as they don't propose to use force to retrieve the data.
Like if I'm arrested for smoking pot in the USA and USA prosecutors want to search my bedroom back home in Amsterdam to collect proof of my drug habit, you think its ok for USA police to force my parents to let them search my bedroom back home (or enter their home by force)? Even if my "crime" is only a crime in the USA?
I'm having trouble determining whether this is a really good analogy, or a really bad one... Leaning towards the former.
On the other hand, it's only becoming precedent in an era where the common person actually has the ability to move things(specifically data) overseas with ease.
The "common person" who can afford that crap.
When your application of justice become predicated on the income level of the accused, it's not justice anymore.
Now what if this worked the other way. Some muslim country gets to search people's US computers even if they know they can't store their Porn on their Muslim country computer. Now they can say that storing that data in the USA isn't enough reason to avoid getting thrown in jail.
If said accused person is a citizen of the aforementioned Muslim country, and even moreso if they are operating a business there, then yes, all their shit very well should be accessible to their government with a legal warrant, no matter where they try to hide it.
Otherwise, you start having the issue of, "if you're rich enough, you can skirt the law."
That's good news, since it's one step closer towards closing the gap between the haves and have-nots.
Being rich enough to shuttle assets to other countries shouldn't mean you get away with breaking the law, because that's an inequal application of justice, and therefore unconstitutional.
One thing I can tell you as a former smoker is, when you're hooked on cigarettes, there's no escaping it. You can't avoid being with other smokers, because the smell of cigarette is everywhere. When I quit smoking, it'd only take some random guy who had just smoked outside, walking past me, reeking of cold cigarette smoke, to send me craving like there was no tomorrow.
Random guys who smell of tobacco are everywhere. You just can't escape the smell. You're constantly bombarded with reminders that, yes, you'd really REALLY want to smoke one just right now.
FTFY.
I switched from cigarettes to a pipe about 2.5 years ago, and now I can't stand the chemical reek of coffin nails. "random guy who smells like cigarettes" grosses me out just as much as he does a non-smoker, maybe even more so. Conversely, I get complements about the smell of pipe smoke all the time, and people actually tell me, "it's cool, you can smoke in here, I like the way that smells." I still won't smoke indoors out of principle, though.
finding a hob is not full time.
Sounds like the words of someone who's never found themselves suddenly unemployed. Of course, from the sound of it you're content to lose everything you owe money on (house, car, etc) just to exercise some odd brand of "loyalty" to people who aren't holding up their end of the bargain, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Oh, and it's "job," with a j, not an h. The first time I thought it was a typo, but you did it again, which leads me to believe that you think that's how the word is spelled/pronounced.
If company pulls through you'll be paid arrears,
Well, I'm sure your mortgage company will accept IOUs until then, huh?
hint: even if you leave, they still owe you for past pay
Yea, no shit, Sherlock. Did you think this was some clever quip, rather than a statement of the obvious?
To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)
