After it took over and solidified itself as the world leader at it of course there was no need to steal IP anymore, most of it is registered there already and to the benefit of their nation. I'm sure people a hundred years from now will be having similar conversations if china or someone else takes the us's place and naturally starts caring about IP(and the runner ups stop caring).
I assume most americans today are already under the impression their government spies on them and facebook/google will gladly give anything that is asked for, how does the chinese spying on them make any difference for the average citizen? If I was a regular american and had to choose I'd take the foreign spy 10/10 times. What will the chinese do to the regular american citizen compared to what his own contry could do with this information?
If you're diaspora and other smaller interest groups for sure, but the general citizen probably wouldn't care at an individual level. I'd argue that the NSA revelations and how everything just got worse and worse since then killed any chance of the public caring about this kind of stuff.
> how does the chinese spying on them make any difference for the average citizen? If I was a regular american and had to choose I'd take the foreign spy 10/10 times
As popular as the platform is with the younger demographic and the voting preferences of said younger demographic it's political malpractice for democrats to not try to at least salvage some face in this whole ordeal, whether you think the blame is misplaced or not.
Maybe the US and its proxies should lead by example before trying to convince anyone else, given they are the ones who dropped far more bombs than all of those combined.
don't let children use?
In TN it that will be illegal Jan 1 - unless social media creates a method for parents to provide ID and opt out of them being blocked I think?
Wouldn't that put the responsibility back on the parents?
The state told you XYZ was bad for your kids and it's illegal for them to use, but then you bypassed that restriction and put the sugar back into their hands with an access-blocker-blocker..
Age limitations for things are pretty widespread. Of course, they can be bypassed to various degrees but, depending upon how draconian you want to be, you can presumably be seen as doing the best you reasonably can in a virtual world.
> A fair amount of “this is fine, governments enforce IP laws and that’s a public good” vibes in here, which is all a very reasonable perspective.
I'd say it would be a a reasonable perspective if his case was being tried where the offences actually took place and/or where he was a citizen of and not a country who refuses to give the same rights to non-citizens being tried there compared to citizens[1] and wasn't even where the offense took place. This is absolutely chilling for anyone who isn't an US citizen honestly.
Note he's a permanent resident, which is a lot closer to citizen than most other resident class visas in NZ and forbids one from being spied on like the NZ government did.
>It does, inasmuch as your sentenced described the NZ jurisdiction as a mockery on the basis that it "sells out" its citizens.
No. What I said was that this is a mockery of jurisdiction. I seem to recall that DotCom lived in South Korea when what he's being accused of happened. Whether he's a citizen of NZ or not, this is a joke. The US has no legal right to demand his extradition just because the servers were in the US. It's just using political power to get its way. Like I said in a different sub-thread, what, it now has jurisdiction over the entire planet and can require anyone anywhere to follow its laws?
NZ is a member of 5 eyes IIRC, and so likely have various relations/cooperative agreements in place that make it easy(-ier) for justifying the handing of citizens over to another state.
It's not analogous. The person was being charged of a crime that happened in the UK and fled to the US, then was extradited back to the UK to be tried. In other words how extraditions usually work.
An applicable case would be someone being extradited from the US to the UK to be tried for a crime that happened while they were in a different country.
The general rule is that a crime takes place where the victim stands. Where the perpetrator stand is a potential secondary location. The alleged victims here were "standing" in the US and so the US is proceeding with the case.
Trials in a third location are extraordinarily rare. Only things like the ICC or some admiralty proceedings involve trials in a third location.
So if someone robs your house while you're out of the country, the crime would have taken place in whatever country you happened to be in at that time, right? That's how that would play out. Because if that's not the case it would imply that the house itself would be the victim.
I also think it's odd to talk about this being the "general rule" when there's plenty of crimes/infractions with no victim.
Is that going to be a trial by the laws of the land he resides in and not to a foreign country that the defendant is not a citizen nor a resident nor operates out of and that refuses to guarantee the same protections under the law to a non-citizen compared to a citizen[1]?
This same foreign country who passed laws for invading the hague if they came under trial for crimes in the ICC.
[1]: See assange's bid for first amendment's guarantees when the same foreign country was trying to extradite and "trial" him
He moved to New Zealand after much of the alleged criminal conduct, in a deal where he was pretty explicitly buying residency to the point that immigration authorities tried to keep it a secret. (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6547471/Secrecy-over-...)
The comment he's responding to speculates that he is being paid by russia to post on twitter, as if people couldn't come to their own conclusions based on their own views and their own biases, which are very very strong against the US if you're Kim Dotcom with good reason.
The sanctions in Venezuela are/were very different from the ones in Cuba, there is a prohibition of trade from any US company and its subsidiaries with Cuba with the exception of food, not some specific sectors aimed at supposedly weakening the government.
With that being said it could also be incompetence and/or corruption, but ignoring the embargo completely is just working to weaken your argument.
What historical precedent? Just in the last 3 decades you had afghanistan, iraq, libya and (ongoing) syria in the middle east alone showing how horrific the consequences of this type of meddling are.
