The Americans in this case have access to the data. The global infrastructure is maintained form the USA company.
The hypothetical that was being discussed was the Irish subsidiary blocking access deliberately as a way of the US owners getting around the US legal problems. I agree the Irish employees can't get involved in anyway.
I agree with you. The argument being presented by others (including the other AC) was that the USA officials would be in trouble or that those laws would be effectual. But absolutely following USA laws might very well violate European law. There may be no way for Microsoft to resolve this. They might not be a way to offer a global cloud solution given conflicting laws.
Nonsense that is governed by international treaty. And Microsoft Corp of Washington State can disband Microsoft Operations of Ireland Limited Tomorrow if they want.
That's possibly true. It may be that there is no way to operate in both countries legally. Or there are going to need to be treaties written. But my point in this thread is US law and the fact that the US government can and will enforce it on US companies and will get the data.
Europeans are not going to be able to simultaneously have their data protection laws be effectual and have free access to internet services from USA companies without some agreements. Until such agreement One or the other is going to have go.
Yes we do.
No you don't. The person suing you has the burden of proof. They have to show by preponderance of the evidence that you were factually incorrect and that you knew you were factually incorrect.
In the USA that's not libel. If I literally requested service 3 times then even though saying I had to ask 3 times is misleading saying it is not libel. So your example serves its purpose, but it does prove the difference.
Doesn't the US have laws against slander too?
It was written so it would be libel not slander. And yes the USA does have such laws. But the bar is very high to prove libel. The review in question, which mainly gave a factual analysis of bad service, wouldn't be remotely close to libel in the USA.
When the United States started we had a bunch of different states with radically different cultures. Free immigration between them eliminated that. The open borders policy and free trade union will do to Europe what the 1760s+ did to the USA if it runs for long enough.
Well I for one want to make sure the Streisand effect is in full force so...
1) Il Giardino, the Italian restaurant in Cap-Ferret, France mentioned in this article could sue Caroline Doudet for an opinion expressed in Les Chroniques Culturelles ( link) itself is pretty bad. You read the article and the review gives specific examples of terrible service and recommends that people avoid the restaurant. That is fundamentally what free speech is all about.
2) The war on Scientology. The whole concept that governments have the right to regulate religious beliefs.
3) The idea that objecting to policy by writing articles critical (for example being opposed to the Geneva conventions) constitutes war crimes.
4) Calumnia laws or the idea that defense witnesses can be charged with a crime for disagreeing with the police about what happened.
European countries lack free speech protections. Their system is terrible and it deserves criticism.
Read the thread. I've hit this enough times. The overseas guys indirectly work for a Washington State company. They can be told to comply by that Washington State company.
Of course Microsoft owns the data. Microsoft owns Round Island LLC which owns Round Island One which owns Microsoft Operations of Ireland. Everything MIOL owns is owned indirectly by Microsoft. Microsoft can with a few simple documents take possession of every piece of carpet, every chair, every office pen and yes every server.
as I no more have legal access to my office-mate's purse than I do to my neighbor's house.
In context this was from a judge. Presumably in this hypothetical (see the context) you would have a warrant. The point was that the judge can nullify BS property claims and thus avoid situations where companies create ambiguous ownership so that no document requests can be met.
Likewise, your statement implies that you could hand me a subpoena when I am sitting in Starbucks and force me to take keys out of the purse of the stranger sitting next to me, just because I saw her put them in her purse.
Correct it does imply that. And that's correct. I doubt a judge would issue such a subpoena but they most certainly could. You are obligated to cooperate.
Even more important, you might have a subpoena for house keys, and although I know that Betsy keeps keys in her purse, I do not know she keeps house keys there, and even if I did, I doubt I could pick them out.
You are obligated to cooperate to the best of your ability, "a reasonable belief that there might be evidence in the records requested".
And why would they want to do that? The purpose of Apple software is to sell Apple hardware. If there is a demand for VMs they are going to want those VMs to run on a reincarnated XServer.
You can redirect services to your own servers, that's part of the enterprise SDK. Most people access that functionality through their MDM/EMM.
We are not a loved organization, but we are a respected one. -- John Fisher
