"They were subtle and had convincing arguments, yet in your mind they were all definitely trolls. Why is that?"
How about first you explain why so many people are fond of straw men.
GP stated "Whatever happened to the subtle trolls (yes they did exist)..," showing (s)he does in fact believe they were trolls, and then gave two pieces of evidence which I claim shows they weren't trolls at all. Please explain where you see a straw man in this argument.
..has really done down. These guys might as well hang a flashing neon TROLL or SHILL sign above their posts nowadays its so obvious. Whatever happened to the subtle trolls (yes they did exist) that had - on the surface at least - had very convincing arguments?
Perhaps they weren't trolls at all, and simply had different opinions than you do. They were subtle and had convincing arguments, yet in your mind they were all definitely trolls. Why is that?
So this isn't about a statute of limitations. It's about something more like the U.S. 6th Ammendment which, basically, bans open ended investigations and other Kafkaesque stuff. Within a reasonable timeframe law enforcement has to bring formal charges to a court of law, specifying exactly what the person is accused of, the court decides and that's the end of it.
What do you think a statute of limitations is?
If a Scotsman commits rape in France, he may be tried in England.
The main problem is that laws which protect Google's property - especially IP - are global, mostly thanks to international treaties. I would like to see countries where this is not so, and would be keen to find out how Google would feel about that
Barring niche circumstances linking the crime to England, like the Scotsman travelling on official government business, or the raped person being English, or the rapist having a really long dick and so the crime was actually committed on the other side of the English Channel, then I don't believe this is true at all.
>> While (X) may be the law in (place), it is not the law globally (therefore pound sand)
Wow. And techies thought Microsoft was arrogant when dealing with Europe in the 2000s.
More to the point: how do I get to be a multinational corporation so I can tell local authorities to fuck off too?
I think you are missing a major point of the discussion. Google complies with French law in France. Google complies with EU law in the EU. Google did not want to comply with Chinese law in China, so they left China. The issue is that France is trying to force Google to comply with French law everywhere else. I hope you can see the distinction.
Byte your tongue.