[mike777]

Yahoo is in the news for giving China some information on a Chinese citizen who used Yahoo while in China. Yahoo gave China the information after being served by a Chinese legal order.

The USA Congress wants to force Yahoo to pick and choose what laws in other countries it should follow or not follow.

I assume the Chinese will arrest whoever they can from Yahoo if Yahoo breaks the law. I assume India will arrest whoever they can from Yahoo if Yahoo breaks Indian law.

Of course Yahoo may have owners of itself and workers who live in other countries. In fact at one point in the future most of its owners and workers may live outside the USA.

Whose law should the Internet follow and what happens when those laws are in conflict? Keep in mind you may very well go rot in jail or have countries chasing after you if you do something wrong.

[helene_t]

Maybe yahoo.cn is a Chinese legal entity? I suppose they would need an American court order to get information from yahoo.com. Rests the question if such an American court order should be based on Chinese law or the law of whatever US state yahoo.com is placed in.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Nov 7 2007, 09:25 AM, said:

Maybe yahoo.cn is a Chinese legal entity? I suppose they would need an American court order to get information from yahoo.com. Rests the question if such an American court order should be based on Chinese law or the law of whatever US state yahoo.com is placed in.

So if the USA wants info on a USA citizen using China Yahoo in the USA we go to a chinese court? Let's say a kidnap, murder or kiddie porn case? We to to offshore island yahoo court to get a warrant for info for offshore island based yahoo?
Even though offshore island yahoo is owned by americans who work in America with the servers in America we still go to offshore yahoo or china yahoo court?

And just where is the internet based?

Keep in mind my email going from NYC to my neighbor in NYC may be routed through Chinese fiberoptics, yes?

[helene_t]

mike777, on Nov 7 2007, 07:14 PM, said:

So if the USA wants info on a USA citizen using China Yahoo in the USA we go to a chinese court? Let's say a kidnap, murder or kiddie porn case? We to to offshore island yahoo court to get a warrant for info for offshore island based yahoo?

What's the alternative? To send the marines, have them pick up the web servers on the offshore island?

[mike777]

helene_t, on Nov 7 2007, 12:16 PM, said:

mike777, on Nov 7 2007, 07:14 PM, said:

So if the USA wants info on a USA citizen using China Yahoo in the USA we go to a chinese court? Let's say a kidnap, murder or kiddie porn case? We to to offshore island yahoo court to get a warrant for info for offshore island based yahoo?

What's the alternative? To send the marines, have them pick up the web servers on the offshore island?

The alternatice is to threaten what the Chinese did with Yahoo, Helene.
Or have the EU threaten Yahoo, or have India threaten Yahoo...as they do.

Or do you prefer to just let the kidnapped kid rot in hell? My point is you got to do something, throwing up your hands and saying lets talk or send it to the UN is doing nothing.

My point is what the US Congress is doing is just plain silly and hurtful in the long run. It does not help Chinese democratic movement.

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Nov 7 2007, 12:19 PM, said:

Or have the EU threaten Yahoo, or have India threaten Yahoo...as they do.

Dunno what go it's going to do to go piecemeal like this. And it's not like our government doesn't do the same thing.

[hrothgar]

Like it or not, if you want to do business in China you have to play by China's rules.

I doubt that the Chinese had the legal authority to compell Yahoo to hand over any information without a formal extradition process. However, the Chinese are completely capable of refusing to allow Yahoo to do business in China unless they comply with the court order. I'm not sure what the US Congress has to do with anything. I assume that they simply refused to get involved and offered Yahoo the choice of complying with the Chinese request or facing possible retaliation from China.

This sort of thing happens ever day of the week. All of the major US hardware manufacturers have modified the products that they sell into China. Companies like Cisco disable VPN's and other types of encryption devices. This causes a big headache for US based companies with Chinese offices whose IT policies specify the use of VPN type systems. Google, Microsoft, and the like modify their search engines to avoid showing search results that the Chinese wouldn't like.

I seem to recall many people arguing that bridge players should display a sign disparging Bush for fear of offending the delicate sensibilities of the Chinese hosts.

For what its worth, none of this is specific to China: Try to purchase WWII "nostalgia" items on eBAY from a computer in France. You can't... The German version of World War II computer games have been modified to avoid breaking German laws about displaying Nazi symbols like the swastika and the "SS" sign.

If your interested in the US, try watching the fights over internet gambling or porn. As I recall, Fred had to modify BBO for worry that the Money Bridge tables might run afoul of some state regulations.

[mike777]

US Congress is trying to pass some law that sounds so vague it could mean anything and you are breaking it and go to jail. My point is Congress writes some nonsense law that means anything to anyone and you got to pay millions to lawyers to defend yourself.


1) US internet companies(whatever that means)
2) cannot turnover information to another country if it involves a "democratic movement"...whatever that means.

Yes in a broader sense this goes on every day on the internet with many examples.

Of course I am still confused just what is the internet and where is it and who controls it,USA Congress does, yes?

[Foxx]

mike777, on Nov 7 2007, 12:17 PM, said:

Whose law should the Internet follow and what happens when those laws are in conflict?

It shouldn't follow anybody's laws at all.

It should be a wild, free frontier, like it was in the beginning.

[mike777]

Foxx, on Nov 7 2007, 08:01 PM, said:

mike777, on Nov 7 2007, 12:17 PM, said:

Whose law should the Internet follow and what happens when those laws are in conflict?

It shouldn't follow anybody's laws at all.

It should be a wild, free frontier, like it was in the beginning.

One can choose to live in dreamland or OTOH the real world.

Anyway I keep hearing some very smart people are out to replace the internet with something, I have no idea what, do you?

[Foxx]

mike777, on Nov 7 2007, 12:17 PM, said:

One can choose to live in dreamland or OTOH the real world.

But that's no fun at all....

[geller]

Quote

It shouldn't follow anybody's laws at all.

It should be a wild, free frontier, like it was in the beginning.

What it was in the beginning was the ARPANET, sponsored by ARPA (the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the US Department of Defense), and things just sort of grew from there.

[Winstonm]

Quote

US Congress is trying to pass some law that sounds so vague it could mean anything

Certainly nothing new here, Mike. Our system has become so politicized that the top concern of all members of Congress is the same: reelection.

Legislation is purposefully vague in order to allow deniability if the new law sucks or claim credit if it works - the details of the law are left to the courts to interpret.

Writing good law has been replaced by writing vague law that makes for good sound bites.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Nov 7 2007, 07:19 PM, said:

The alternatice is to threaten what the Chinese did with Yahoo, Helene.
Or have the EU threaten Yahoo, or have India threaten Yahoo...as they do.

Or do you prefer to just let the kidnapped kid rot in hell? My point is you got to do something, throwing up your hands and saying lets talk or send it to the UN is doing nothing.

My point is what the US Congress is doing is just plain silly and hurtful in the long run. It does not help Chinese democratic movement.

Who needs the law when we can handle the criminals by blackmailing them, or their hosts. Cheaper and more effective

Seriously, when the authorities in X-land requires an internet company based in Y-land to provide information about an X-land citizen, one could argue that
- It should be dealt with according to X-land law
- It should be dealt with according to Y-land law
- It should be dealt with according to international law

I'm sure one could also argue that it should be dealt with according to the law of whatever country is in the best position to blackmail the company, but in that case, no law is needed.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Nov 10 2007, 01:08 PM, said:

Seriously, when the authorities in X-land requires an internet company based in Y-land to provide information about an X-land citizen...

If I were running the Y-land company, absent a Y-land law requiring me to compy with X-land's "requirement", I'd tell X-land to pound sand. I might lose a lucrative market, but I'll sleep better.