Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
country's VAT rate you want to pay, or select "out of EU" to pay 0%.
At which point you're committing tax fraud and are legally liable for the failure to pay and the lie that enabled you to do that. What's the alternative? Charge everyone VAT? Guess based on limited information?
-
@sloosecannon said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
country's VAT rate you want to pay, or select "out of EU" to pay 0%.
At which point you're committing tax fraud and are legally liable for the failure to pay and the lie that enabled you to do that.
My point exactly. G2A makes it trivial to commit tax fraud. Just like Google makes it trivial (or rather, used to at the time) to use another country's version of the search.
What's the alternative? Charge everyone VAT? Guess based on limited information?
You have to pay somehow. All supported payment types can determine the buyer's country perfectly. But G2A doesn't care. Why would they? Why would Google care that French can easily access American version?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
what people normally mean when they say natural rights.
TBH, the only people I’ve ever seen to make a distinction between “rights” and “natural rights” in the first place, have been Americans.
-
@Gąska said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
G2A makes it trivial to commit tax fraud.
You can commit tax fraud with this one weird trick! Just lie on your tax paperwork!
-
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
what people normally mean when they say natural rights.
TBH, the only people I’ve ever seen to make a distinction between “rights” and “natural rights” in the first place, have been Americans.
Do you recognize a distinction between "contractual rights" and "rights under the law"?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I am honestly surprised by that.
(More so because of the "US Conservative" aspect than because of the "Christian" aspect, but the Old Testament seems to disagree with you.)Here's the difference between the Old Testament view of the death penalty and modern Christian opposition to it.
Obviously, self defense is allowed. So is third person self defense. A cop who's getting shot at by a crook is allowed to shoot back. Of course.
There's a difference between "in the moment, it's him or me" self defense and the state executing someone as part of a justice process. In a nomadic/agrarian society like those covered in both the Old and New Testaments, the "state", such as it was, literally didn't have the resources to keep a criminal imprisoned for long periods of time. They're obligated to do everything they can do short of killing the guy, which isn't much. This is the mechanic which ultimately forces the "state" into "in the moment, it's him or us" calls.
In nearly any modern society with the death penalty, it's not applied in an "in the moment, this guy is imminently dangerous" scenario. And since modern society ultimately does have the resources to imprison a criminal indefinitely, we have more tools at our disposal short of killing the guy which we're obliged to use.
I agree with that, but what I meant is that the "universal morality" in the bible actually mandates death penalty, and not just for murder but for trivial things where the punishment is a worse crime than the original "crime". Again, this is pretty garage-y.
- Is there a definitive, complete list of rights? If there isn't, is there some lower-level set of principles that can be used to figure out whether something is or is not a right?
No, there is no complete list. Some have been evolved more recently, although arguably only as continuation / details of others. There probably are some philosophical principles to figure that out, but I can't quite describe them right now. Not everyone is going to agree on the principles, though, so you're not going to agree on the results, either.
OK, I'll take that as an answer. Going forward, though, it might be an interesting thought experiment to think about why you believe in the rights that you believe in.
I'd ask the same of you, but that'd be a fruitless answer and I shall refrain from any further garage-worthy discussion in this post.
I feel that I answered all the questions that I asked you in my prior posts in the topic. I don't think my answer is particularly garage-worthy. It is as follows:
I don't think it is possible to make a definitive, complete list of all the natural rights. However, using Locke's principles (All men have a right to life, liberty, and private property), we can reason through whether proposals are indeed natural rights.
That's acceptable. The part I assumed would likely be a "fruitless answer" is when I ask how you arrive at these principles. These are fair principles but I'm not sure if they are complete.
Also, with a little more thought, there's some sex stuff that's immoral but not necessarily violative of rights.
Stongly disagree. What I do in bed, consensually, that doesn't involve someone else's rights is my personal liberty. (Even if your scripture wants to see me dead for it)
- Are there any laws that the government should be prevented from making?
Coming back to your original question I guess that means that the government should be prevented from making laws that fundamentally go against what we deem is right and good, but we already agreed on that without discussing if that notion comes naturally.
I think we disagree here, actually. I'm arguing that governments should be prevented from making laws that violate people's natural rights, even if "the people at large" deem laws right and good. In the GDPR context, this comes back around to "RTBF is a legal right. Because it's a legal right, it is not allowed to violate Freedom of the Press, which is a natural right."
Does this mean libel/slander laws should not exist? They obviously interfere with your right to freedom of speech and don't immediately protect someone else's right to either life, liberty, or property.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Specific laws often have flaws, but I would view something as the "right to privacy", which has lead to the GDPR et al., as a fundamental and important thing. You're going to tell me it's something completely different, but still, the 4th Amendment ensures some form of the idea of privacy.
You guessed correctly; I view the right to privacy more narrowly than you do. The 4th Amendment, for example, does not guarantee a generalized right to privacy. It guarantees a right to keep certain things private from the government.
Here's the thing with the GDPR and the RTBF. The RTBF doesn't actually protect privacy (your ability to refuse to reveal facts that you don't want disclosed). It allows you to prevent certain organizations from publishing facts that they already know.
And [the owners of] an organization that publishes facts has the right to do so because they have natural right to Freedom of the Press. The RTBF is a right under law which is not backed by a natural right. That's a real category, but they're not allowed to interfere with natural rights.
Here's the problems I have with that view of privacy:
Think of 1984 and its total surveillance state. For some reason, Americans only have a problem with that when the government does it (caveat see below). But when private corporations can keep a tab on everything you say and do, that's completely fine. Sure, you surrender that information "willingly" to the public, except when you don't. Enough people don't realize what Amazon is allowed to listen to when they put an Echo in their house, or Google, Apple, whoever. The terms of use don't detail it either, all they do is give themselves maximal rights to do whatever the hell they please. So users can at best assume Amazon is being reasonable and doesn't actually listen to every word they say, but they really have no guarantee for that, and then regularly get surprised about articles that they do listen to more than users realized.
Or take tracking. I go to some random website online. Due to various technical tricks, Google knows where I'm going and the site's stupid Facebook embed lets them know, too. Did I agree to that? No. Do most users even realize they are being constantly tracked everywhere? Absolutely not. But, now you say, that's just like people in the public (e.g. the supermarket) keeping track of what they see you doing. And shouldn't that be their right to do? Except that 1) it happens from what people wrongly assume is the privacy of their home, 2) when I walk around in public there's nobody from Google or Facebook that follows my every step, everywhere, automatically analyzes that data and creates a profile to sell to third parties. And not just following me, but following everybody. Actually, if they did, I'd probably get an injunction because they're stalking me. Finally 3), if there actually were CCTV cameras absolutely everywhere (worse than UK and China, and actually used to profile every single person's moves and behavior), I absolutely would object to that in physical life, too.The EU has tried to enforce some privacy for people online. This has been going on for many years, not just now, as Google, Facebook, et al. did everything they can to circumvent these instead of actually adhere to it. The EU has actually been rather toothless in that regard. For example, they just accepted treaties like the "safer harbor" and "privacy shield" that just declared that they can send all the data to the US and it's defined safe there, despite the knowledge that it isn't. So Google and Facebook just kept doing whatever they've been doing.
Compare that to the US, where TikTok is declared a "national security threat" by decree and forced into a sale to the US in a tight deadline. No court cases that determine if they're actually breaking any US laws, no years of law-making to actually establish this, and years of history of TikTok breaking those rules. Don't get me wrong, TikTok can die in a fire for all I care, but when you look at the process here, Facebook really is in no position to cry of being treated unfairly when (if) they are finally being forced to follow the rules. How much complaining about jurisdiction etc. would you do if the EU forced a sale of Facebook's EU operations?Actually, I think we should be much more strict about all of this. Microsoft Windows is sending "telemetry" data without disclosing what that is or the option to disable it to the US? Fine, if you want that as a private user, but no public office handling citizen data should be allowed to use that. Cloud based services? Again, fine for private individuals or corporations if they agree to it, but not public institutions. Make them actually, verifiably adhere to the privacy and data security laws or stop using any of these services in public institutions.
And on a complete (slightly OT and garage-y) tangent: With you speaking of "natural laws" it's also interesting to look at when the spying is indeed done by the government. Firstly, spying on non-Americans is okay, because they don't have any protection under the US constitution. Legally fine, but when it comes to "rights", our constitution awards them to all humans, not just citizens, and so does the view of universal rights you have presented.
Doing so on allies is already pretty questionable, mass surveillance of all Americans seems clearly unconstitutional though. But again, it's deemed fine because it's the "good guys" doing it, not some oppressive regime like the Chinese.
(Note: I'm not saying that doesn't happen over here, too. I also disagree with that.)
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I am honestly surprised by that.
(More so because of the "US Conservative" aspect than because of the "Christian" aspect, but the Old Testament seems to disagree with you.)Here's the difference between the Old Testament view of the death penalty and modern Christian opposition to it.
Obviously, self defense is allowed. So is third person self defense. A cop who's getting shot at by a crook is allowed to shoot back. Of course.
There's a difference between "in the moment, it's him or me" self defense and the state executing someone as part of a justice process. In a nomadic/agrarian society like those covered in both the Old and New Testaments, the "state", such as it was, literally didn't have the resources to keep a criminal imprisoned for long periods of time. They're obligated to do everything they can do short of killing the guy, which isn't much. This is the mechanic which ultimately forces the "state" into "in the moment, it's him or us" calls.
In nearly any modern society with the death penalty, it's not applied in an "in the moment, this guy is imminently dangerous" scenario. And since modern society ultimately does have the resources to imprison a criminal indefinitely, we have more tools at our disposal short of killing the guy which we're obliged to use.
I agree with that, but what I meant is that the "universal morality" in the bible actually mandates death penalty, and not just for murder but for trivial things where the punishment is a worse crime than the original "crime". Again, this is pretty garage-y.
Most of the stuff Biblical stuff you're pointing at are prohibitions against committing treason. In a world where the Jews were a small minority and they were agrarian/nomadic, treason against the tribe would literally destroy it.
The bar for "society has the ability to deal with treason short of killing the offender" is far higher now than it was in the Old Testament. And still, in a true "in the moment him or us" scenario where somebody's treason is about to get somebody else killed, killing the person in self defense is morally justified.
- Is there a definitive, complete list of rights? If there isn't, is there some lower-level set of principles that can be used to figure out whether something is or is not a right?
No, there is no complete list. Some have been evolved more recently, although arguably only as continuation / details of others. There probably are some philosophical principles to figure that out, but I can't quite describe them right now. Not everyone is going to agree on the principles, though, so you're not going to agree on the results, either.
OK, I'll take that as an answer. Going forward, though, it might be an interesting thought experiment to think about why you believe in the rights that you believe in.
I'd ask the same of you, but that'd be a fruitless answer and I shall refrain from any further garage-worthy discussion in this post.
I feel that I answered all the questions that I asked you in my prior posts in the topic. I don't think my answer is particularly garage-worthy. It is as follows:
I don't think it is possible to make a definitive, complete list of all the natural rights. However, using Locke's principles (All men have a right to life, liberty, and private property), we can reason through whether proposals are indeed natural rights.
That's acceptable. The part I assumed would likely be a "fruitless answer" is when I ask how you arrive at these principles. These are fair principles but I'm not sure if they are complete.
It's the fact that essentially every real non-tyrannical society came up with essentially the same concepts. Maybe not in those words, but it's the same concepts. And since essentially every non-tyrannical society came up with the same concept, maybe there's something biasing us towards that concept. Just like the concept behind "The Golden Rule" shows up in essentially every morality system we have a written record of, even the ones that predate the part of the Old Testament that Christ was paraphrasing.
Also, with a little more thought, there's some sex stuff that's immoral but not necessarily violative of rights.
Stongly disagree. What I do in bed, consensually, that doesn't involve someone else's rights is my personal liberty. (Even if your scripture wants to see me dead for it)
Not sure what the strong disagreement is here. The laws are supposed to be there to protect rights, not to enforce morality. Which is why I drew the distinction in the first place.
- Are there any laws that the government should be prevented from making?
Coming back to your original question I guess that means that the government should be prevented from making laws that fundamentally go against what we deem is right and good, but we already agreed on that without discussing if that notion comes naturally.
I think we disagree here, actually. I'm arguing that governments should be prevented from making laws that violate people's natural rights, even if "the people at large" deem laws right and good. In the GDPR context, this comes back around to "RTBF is a legal right. Because it's a legal right, it is not allowed to violate Freedom of the Press, which is a natural right."
Does this mean libel/slander laws should not exist? They obviously interfere with your right to freedom of speech and don't immediately protect someone else's right to either life, liberty, or property.
In the American definition of "libel" and "slander," the defamatory statement needs to actually be false. ("Truth is an absolute defense to slander" and whatnot) I'm assuming that definition is in place for my answer.
The reason you would defame someone is in order to falsely interfere with their rights. Which right depends on what the actual defamatory content is, "@topspin killed an 18 year old coed. Let's show up at his house with torches and pitchforks" is presumably a defamatory statement, and it's meant to interfere with your right to life,
"@topspin cheated on his taxes. He shouldn't be hired for a government job" is meant to interfere with your right to acquire property. "@topspin got a disease from a stripper. You shouldn't bang him" is meant to interfere with your liberty to enter into a consenting sexual relationship with a potential partner. Etc. Any kind of defamatory statement is going to fall into those categories, which is why laws against libel and slander protect people's fundamental rights.
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Specific laws often have flaws, but I would view something as the "right to privacy", which has lead to the GDPR et al., as a fundamental and important thing. You're going to tell me it's something completely different, but still, the 4th Amendment ensures some form of the idea of privacy.
You guessed correctly; I view the right to privacy more narrowly than you do. The 4th Amendment, for example, does not guarantee a generalized right to privacy. It guarantees a right to keep certain things private from the government.
Here's the thing with the GDPR and the RTBF. The RTBF doesn't actually protect privacy (your ability to refuse to reveal facts that you don't want disclosed). It allows you to prevent certain organizations from publishing facts that they already know.
And [the owners of] an organization that publishes facts has the right to do so because they have natural right to Freedom of the Press. The RTBF is a right under law which is not backed by a natural right. That's a real category, but they're not allowed to interfere with natural rights.
Here's the problems I have with that view of privacy:
Think of 1984 and its total surveillance state. For some reason, Americans only have a problem with that when the government does it (caveat see below). But when private corporations can keep a tab on everything you say and do, that's completely fine. Sure, you surrender that information "willingly" to the public, except when you don't. Enough people don't realize what Amazon is allowed to listen to when they put an Echo in their house, or Google, Apple, whoever. The terms of use don't detail it either, all they do is give themselves maximal rights to do whatever the hell they please. So users can at best assume Amazon is being reasonable and doesn't actually listen to every word they say, but they really have no guarantee for that, and then regularly get surprised about articles that they do listen to more than users realized.
Or take tracking. I go to some random website online. Due to various technical tricks, Google knows where I'm going and the site's stupid Facebook embed lets them know, too. Did I agree to that? No. Do most users even realize they are being constantly tracked everywhere? Absolutely not. But, now you say, that's just like people in the public (e.g. the supermarket) keeping track of what they see you doing. And shouldn't that be their right to do? Except that 1) it happens from what people wrongly assume is the privacy of their home, 2) when I walk around in public there's nobody from Google or Facebook that follows my every step, everywhere, automatically analyzes that data and creates a profile to sell to third parties. And not just following me, but following everybody. Actually, if they did, I'd probably get an injunction because they're stalking me. Finally 3), if there actually were CCTV cameras absolutely everywhere (worse than UK and China, and actually used to profile every single person's moves and behavior), I absolutely would object to that in physical life, too.The EU has tried to enforce some privacy for people online. This has been going on for many years, not just now, as Google, Facebook, et al. did everything they can to circumvent these instead of actually adhere to it. The EU has actually been rather toothless in that regard. For example, they just accepted treaties like the "safer harbor" and "privacy shield" that just declared that they can send all the data to the US and it's defined safe there, despite the knowledge that it isn't. So Google and Facebook just kept doing whatever they've been doing.
This is all stuff about protecting your ability to conceal stuff from Google and Facebook, though. Those parts of the GDPR are fine, if the EU is only enforcing them in Europe (and not using soft power to try to force American companies outside Europe to use them.)
The RTBF is about preventing certain companies from exploiting things that they already know because they are publicly available government information. That's the part that's violative of rights.
Compare that to the US, where TikTok is declared a "national security threat" by decree and forced into a sale to the US in a tight deadline. No court cases that determine if they're actually breaking any US laws, no years of law-making to actually establish this, and years of history of TikTok breaking those rules. Don't get me wrong, TikTok can die in a fire for all I care, but when you look at the process here, Facebook really is in no position to cry of being treated unfairly when (if) they are finally being forced to follow the rules. How much complaining about jurisdiction etc. would you do if the EU forced a sale of Facebook's EU operations?
This is a little different because the US and China have a very different relationship than the US and the EU, and China is very much The Bad Guys with a track record of doing Very Bad Things using other shells. The fact that TikTok is a new shell for the Chinese government isn't something that really matters to me. I'd feel much differently about an EU equivalent of Facebook getting the TikTok treatment from the US Government than I do about TikTok itself.
Actually, I think we should be much more strict about all of this. Microsoft Windows is sending "telemetry" data without disclosing what that is or the option to disable it to the US? Fine, if you want that as a private user, but no public office handling citizen data should be allowed to use that. Cloud based services? Again, fine for private individuals or corporations if they agree to it, but not public institutions. Make them actually, verifiably adhere to the privacy and data security laws or stop using any of these services in public institutions.
I'm not sure why you think think it doesn't work like that, but the US government specifically does turn off Windows telemetry and has special instances of the cloud services they use with the telemetry turned off. They have to. When they buy technical documentation from vendors, those vendors don't necessarily want to give that documentation to Microsoft. But they upload it to Government-owned cloud services especially because the government is showing them that Microsoft isn't spying on those services.
And on a complete (slightly OT and garage-y) tangent: With you speaking of "natural laws" it's also interesting to look at when the spying is indeed done by the government. Firstly, spying on non-Americans is okay, because they don't have any protection under the US constitution. Legally fine, but when it comes to "rights", our constitution awards them to all humans, not just citizens, and so does the view of universal rights you have presented.
: The reason the US Constitution only applies in the US is that it's part of US law, and US law doesn't have universal jurisdiction. (Also, US laws, including the Constitution, apply to foreigners who are present in the US.) The Constitution doesn't "award" natural rights so much as it enshrines existing natural rights in American law.I'd like to see less of a surveillance state too, but there's a difference between collecting information and then not using it to further infringe upon somebody's rights, and collecting information and then using it to further infringe upon someone's rights.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
When they buy technical documentation from vendors
That's... Not the only reason they keep it turned off....
Filed Under: TS/SCI
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
This is a little different because the US and China have a very different relationship than the US and the EU, and China is very much The Bad Guys with a track record of doing Very Bad Things using other shells.
That, as I read it, is not @topspin’s complaint. His complaint seems to me to be that the American government just declared TikTok to be banned from the USA, without providing any evidence to back the claims, doing some kind of clear investigation into the matter and/or having it go through a judicial or legislative process. Whereas the EU way of dealing with cases like these is to launch some kind of proceedings that may or may not find cause for banning the company, and with the subject being able to defend itself before the decision is actually made.
-
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Like I said initially, I'm worried about governments using "soft power" to encourage companies (especially smaller companies than Google) to do things that they're not technically required to do, like enact global policies within their own business that happen to comply with dumb EU laws.
There's certainly an appetite to do that among the CNIL. And although WTDWTF might not be representative of Europe as a whole, there's certainly an appetite for that from the non-Americans in this thread.
Well I don't necessarily disagree with your worry (though I may disagree on the details...), but I think it's wise to differentiate between what is, what could be (subject to simply a new law), and what cannot be (because it's been explicitly ruled against at a level high-enough that it would be hard to change). Just so we can worry for the right reasons.
I think that was in my initial post, which was like the fifth post in the topic or whatever. I'm against new EU privacy regulations because, in my view, too many Europeans think the old EU privacy regulations should apply in the US, and I think the Europeans misunderstand how the rights are supposed to work in general.
Nobody outside this topic has claimed that the new EU privacy regulations we're ostensibly talking about are supposed to affect the US. Yet.
But, if a culture thinks natural rights themselves come from the government, I am mistrustful that their institutions, (in this case the courts) are going to continue to strike down a popular law that violates the rights of people outside their culture.
I understand why Europeans feel the opposite way.
Now if you're worried that companies will obey EU rules even if they are not forced to, well then I guess this shows you're worried that the US is loosing its international clout
We're not exerting our influence on American companies to follow the American conception of rights in foreign markets. We're not coming to liberate you.
On the other hand, the French court was trying to come liberate us.
That's a distinction without a difference, especially since for Google to be liable for the stuff that's in its search results, you need to pretend that Google isn't by definition quoting someone else.
That they are quoting does not mean they are not responsible for distributing it. If a publisher prints and sells a book that they know contains things that are abuses of the freedom of speech (libel, pornography or whatever -- I know the definition of what's an "abuse of freedom of speech" is in practice very different in the EU and the US, but on the moral level, that notion exists everywhere), my view (and that of the EU law) is that they are morally in part responsible.
We're talking about something that someone printed, so the proper comparison is "a libel." The very act of creating child pornography harms the children involved, which is why that is illegal. The very act of printing the libel is not. Consider the difference between "$WHATEVER_GENERIC_LIBEL" and "You'd have to be an idiot to think $WHATEVER_GENERIC_LIBEL is true." Now consider the difference between Cuties and, you know, less famous child porn videos.
In a trial, they would be tried and condemned in parallel to the actual author (not necessarily in the same way, but they would be there).
In fact, a defamation (for example) is only punishable if it was made public somehow, so the entity causing the publication is, in the law, a key element of the offense. That has been a fundamental principle in French law since the 19th century. So it's very well established, in French law, that saying "I wasn't the author of this content" isn't a receivable excuse. As long as you did publish it, you hold (some) responsibility for it.
Consider, for example, a member of your parliament printing campaign material that says, falsely, that:
I know for a fact that $CANDIDATE_FOR_PRIME_MINISTER_FROM_THE_OTHER_PARTY didn't pay any taxes in the past 10 years.
Is that supposed to be libelous? From a moral perspective, at least?
Now consider a newspaper that, in this scenario, prints the headline
$PM_CANDIDATE PAID NO TAXES IN LAST DECADE SAYS $OPPOSING_MP
Is that libelous? In my view, it shouldn't be. It isn't even false. The one candidate did say the other candidate didn't pay taxes.
Now consider a third example: a website that carries news about French politics that caters to French expatriates in some overseas city.
According to $NEWSPAPER_FROM_SECOND_EXAMPLE, $OPPOSING_MP printed campaign material accusing $PM_CANDIDATE of not paying his taxes.
Is this sentence libelous?
-
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
This is a little different because the US and China have a very different relationship than the US and the EU, and China is very much The Bad Guys with a track record of doing Very Bad Things using other shells.
That, as I read it, is not @topspin’s complaint. His complaint seems to me to be that the American government just declared TikTok to be banned from the USA, without providing any evidence to back the claims, doing some kind of clear investigation into the matter and/or having it go through a judicial or legislative process. Whereas the EU way of dealing with cases like these is to launch some kind of proceedings that may or may not find cause for banning the company, and with the subject being able to defend itself before the decision is actually made.
The US government did provide evidence to back the claims that the service is controlled by the Chinese military, at which point it falls afoul of sanctions. And because it violates sanctions, it already went through the legislative process. (Those sanctions were put there legislatively.)
EU sanctions work the same way, by the way.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
if a culture thinks natural rights themselves come from the government
I keep having the impression that most of this misunderstanding is because of your focus on these “natural rights.” I tried finding an equivalent concept in Dutch law, but (maybe partly due to that IANAL), couldn’t find anything of the sort. Yet to you, it’s apparently a given that there are natural rights as well distinctly different rights under the law. Whereas to me, and I suppose a lot of other Europeans, there are simply rights.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
The US government did provide evidence to back the claims that the service is controlled by the Chinese military, at which point it falls afoul of sanctions. And because it violates sanctions, it already went through the legislative process. (Those sanctions were put there legislatively.)
Trying to read about that evidence, I can’t find anything substantial, but I do come across a lot of pages like these:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tiktok-ban/u-s-faces-ongoing-court-battles-over-tiktok-wechat-bans-idUSKBN26J2ZS
As the US gets ready to ban TikTok downloads, there is still no proof the app is spying on you for China
The Trump administration has claimed TikTok is spyware for China as justification for banning the app — but it has offered no real evidence.
-
I don't really understand this division of 'rights' vs 'natural rights' either. It seems like the definition of a natural right is something that Locke thought was important?
I also disagree that the RTBF isn't part of protecting your privacy. Traditional privacy law (e.g. previous data protection law, and the rest of the GDPR) are protecting your privacy by making it harder to accidentally share things you don't mean to, and making it illegal for companies to share information in ways you didn't consent to. The RTBF is about protecting you from as much of the fallout as possible when you have already accidentally shared something you didn't mean to. They're two sides of the same issue.
-
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
if a culture thinks natural rights themselves come from the government
I keep having the impression that most of this misunderstanding is because of your focus on these “natural rights.” I tried finding an equivalent concept in Dutch law, but (maybe partly due to that IANAL), couldn’t find anything of the sort.
Yet to you, it’s apparently a given that there are natural rights as well distinctly different rights under the law. Whereas to me, and I suppose a lot of other Europeans, there are simply rights.
You have Freedom of the Press where you live, right? If the government wanted to take away Freedom of the Press, how would they do it? Assume whatever move they're making has popular support.
The US government did provide evidence to back the claims that the service is controlled by the Chinese military, at which point it falls afoul of sanctions. And because it violates sanctions, it already went through the legislative process. (Those sanctions were put there legislatively.)
Trying to read about that evidence, I can’t find anything substantial, but I do come across a lot of pages like these:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tiktok-ban/u-s-faces-ongoing-court-battles-over-tiktok-wechat-bans-idUSKBN26J2ZS
As the US gets ready to ban TikTok downloads, there is still no proof the app is spying on you for China
The Trump administration has claimed TikTok is spyware for China as justification for banning the app — but it has offered no real evidence.
The Reuters piece says that the government has evidence and that one particular judge doesn't think it's good enough. That's very different than "no evidence," especially in an era with so many activist district court judges.
-
@bobjanova said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I don't really understand this division of 'rights' vs 'natural rights' either. It seems like the definition of a natural right is something that Locke thought was important?
Yeah. Natural rights are rights that aren't created by the government and thus can't be taken away by the government.
You have Freedom of the Press in your country, right? If the government wanted to take that away, could they? Assume that they have all the popular support they need.
I also disagree that the RTBF isn't part of protecting your privacy. Traditional privacy law (e.g. previous data protection law, and the rest of the GDPR) are protecting your privacy by making it harder to accidentally share things you don't mean to, and making it illegal for companies to share information in ways you didn't consent to. The RTBF is about protecting you from as much of the fallout as possible when you have already accidentally shared something you didn't mean to. They're two sides of the same issue.
Well, we're talking about a court case where the speech at issue is Google saying
Hey, this French newspaper wrote an article using certain keywords. If you click on this link, you can go to their site and read their story and click on their ads.
A third party had Google's speech censored under RTBF, so forgive me for thinking it applies overly broadly.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
You have Freedom of the Press in your country, right? If the government wanted to take that away, could they? Assume that they have all the popular support they need.
But is Freedom of the Press a natural right in the first place? That's the complexity with natural rights.
It's easier to simply say that there are rights, and then there are rights recognised by law. Nobody says that the law defines all the rights that someone has (except in truly oppressive dictatorships) but there is value in the recognition of a right in that that recognition avoids a lot of annoying argument in court. There are fewer absolute rights, which are ones that can be exercised freely by someone without running into infringement of others' rights; for example, the right to freedom of speech does not include freedom from consequences when malicious speech causes harm to others.
The exact rights that are recognised are different on the two sides of the Atlantic, and so are the procedures relating to what that means. (For example, European law tends to consider that rights are also important in agreements between private entities where at least one of those is a natural person, and US law allows for corporate entities having substantive rights. Those are really critical differences, yet aren't really part of what the rights are.)
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Natural rights are rights that aren't created by the government and thus can't be taken away by the government.
But everything can be taken away by the government - just look at North Korea.
Even if you think there are some natural rights that should not be taken away by governments (e.g. the UN UDHR), it's not at all clear that 'freedom of the press' is one of those. There's no such right in the UDHR. It does say that individuals should have the right of free expression, though as per earlier discussion even that has major caveats (libel/slander, anti-Nazi laws, rules about 'hate speech' and extremism). But there's a big jump from there to sayingh that corporations should have an uninfringable right to free broadcasting of their expression.
I don't see how 'Google should be allowed to publish links to whatever it likes on the Internet' can possibly be a natural right, since none of the concepts in that sentence even existed until recently, and even corporations are a societal construct.
This is entirely aside from the question of whether that publication and broadcasting is a right that society should give to companies. But that decision has come from society, not from nature.
-
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Yet to you, it’s apparently a given that there are natural rights as well distinctly different rights under the law. Whereas to me, and I suppose a lot of other Europeans, there are simply rights.
Are you sure? I am not, because I see quite often that the term "right" is often used not just for Human Rights or even law-granted rights, but for contractual rights too.
Like, for example, the textbook dropped-ice cream case: K goes to ice cream parlor and pay 1 Euro for an ice cream. The seller tries to give her the cone, but due to some bumbling on both parts, it drops on the floor. K demand a new one and the seller refuses. K takes it to the court and the court decides that the contractual obligation was not fulfilled and she is in her right to get a new cone with ice cream scoop. She has a right to it.
Cue the news article: Europeans have Right to Ice Cream!
Everyone sensible, though, understands that the Right to Ice Cream is not the same as, say, Right to Marry. (I am sure that many of us would gladly switch those two, though).I actually think this might be a language issue to some degree. I think that German language does have a much better variety of terms here, but sadly cannot confirm that (I am still a beginner and all native german speakers I know claim that they don't understand Legal German either).
-
@dkf said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
You have Freedom of the Press in your country, right? If the government wanted to take that away, could they? Assume that they have all the popular support they need.
But is Freedom of the Press a natural right in the first place? That's the complexity with natural rights.
That's why I asked about whether the government is allowed to take it away. If the idea had popular support, should the government be able to repeal Freedom of Speech?
On the other hand, what if there was popular support to repeal a Parlimentary system and replace it with a US-style bicameral system? Would that violate anyone's rights?
It's easier to simply say that there are rights, and then there are rights recognised by law. Nobody says that the law defines all the rights that someone has (except in truly oppressive dictatorships) but there is value in the recognition of a right in that that recognition avoids a lot of annoying argument in court.
Rights under the law very much need to be precisely defined in the law because they are, in fact, created by the legislature as part of the law. They don't exist otherwise.
Natural rights, on the other hand, weren't created by the legislature and thus don't need to be written down by them. (They often are for simplicity's sake - to avoid annoying court arguments - but they don't need to be.)
The exact rights that are recognised are different on the two sides of the Atlantic, and so are the procedures relating to what that means. (For example, European law tends to consider that rights are also important in agreements between private entities where at least one of those is a natural person, and US law allows for corporate entities having substantive rights. Those are really critical differences, yet aren't really part of what the rights are.)
There's two kinds of debates over rights. Debates between a natural person and another natural person, and debates between a natural person and the government.
In the kinds of debates you're talking about (a natural person versus a corporation), the corporation itself doesn't have any rights. But the owners of the corporation are natural persons entitled to the same natural law rights as anyone else. They don't lose their rights by joining the group.
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I am still a beginner and all native german speakers I know claim that they don't understand Legal German either
Nobody does (lawyers aside), but I’m not sure that’s restricted to German.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
In the kinds of debates you're talking about (a natural person versus a corporation), the corporation itself doesn't have any rights. But the owners of the corporation are natural persons entitled to the same natural law rights as anyone else. They don't lose their rights by joining the group.
Ok, you have repeated this several times and looks like you are still missing the point. The issue is not whether individual owners have rights, but whether denying those rights to the corporation affects their personal rights. You claim that they do, without any argument why is that and how exactly does that work. Is it universal? Does it means that corporation can marry someone? I am pretty sure that is not possible in USA, so... does that mean that by owning single share, you are denied Right to Marry?
Also, corporations do have some rights on their own. Arguably not natural rights.
-
@bobjanova said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Natural rights are rights that aren't created by the government and thus can't be taken away by the government.
But everything can be taken away by the government - just look at North Korea.
Yeah, North Korea does not have a legitimate government. In order to become legitimate, they would have to start respecting people's rights (among other things.)
That's kind of what I meant about "differentiating good governments from bad governments."
Even if you think there are some natural rights that should not be taken away by governments (e.g. the UN UDHR), it's not at all clear that 'freedom of the press' is one of those. There's no such right in the UDHR. It does say that individuals should have the right of free expression, though as per earlier discussion even that has major caveats (libel/slander, anti-Nazi laws, rules about 'hate speech' and extremism). But there's a big jump from there to sayingh that corporations should have an uninfringable right to free broadcasting of their expression.
- Either "Freedom of Expression" is meant to exclude Freedom of the Press and the UN is tyrannical, or, as I suspect, they're using slightly different wording to mean the same concept. In the US, freedom of expression isn't a legal term, but it's used to mean the combination of the Freedoms of Speech, Press, Peaceable Assembly, and Petitioning the Government, all of which are explicitly called out in the First Amendment and all of which are treated the same way under the relevant law. I'm pretty sure the UN went with Freedom of Expression because they didn't want to type all that.
- European anti-hate speech laws are dumb. By definition, they treat similar ideologies differently and so violate equal treatment under the law. They ensnare people who talk about ideologies without supporting them. And they don't even work. You guys have a much bigger Nazi problem than we do.
- Google doesn't have any rights. But the people who own Google have the same natural law rights as anyone else.
I don't see how 'Google should be allowed to publish links to whatever it likes on the Internet' can possibly be a natural right, since none of the concepts in that sentence even existed until recently, and even corporations are a societal construct.
Would a book publisher be allowed to publish a book containing the URL? (Say it's a book about the French newspaper and there's a chapter about this controversy.)
This is entirely aside from the question of whether that publication and broadcasting is a right that society should give to companies. But that decision has come from society, not from nature.
Doesn't that right exist for the owners of the newspaper? They're also acting as part of a corporation, and their speech is actually making assertations about the guy in question.
Other than that Google's speech doesn't assert anything about the guy in question, what's the difference between Google's speech and the newspaper's speech?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
European anti-hate speech laws are dumb. By definition, they treat similar ideologies differently and so violate equal treatment under the law. They ensnare people who talk about ideologies without supporting them.
That's quite disputable. Compare with your earlier examples
"@topspin cheated on his taxes. He shouldn't be hired for a government job" is meant to interfere with your right to acquire property. "@topspin got a disease from a stripper. You shouldn't bang him" is meant to interfere with your liberty to enter into a consenting sexual relationship with a potential partner.
I found these quite weak in the connection that they refer to my rights as stated (unlike the first example, which I find a much more problematic statement). A statement like "Jews are sub-humans, let's kill them all" is much more endangering to people's life. (I'm not a lawyer, but I think (if at all), only the second half of the sentence would actually be legally problematic as a call to violence, the first part alone would just be retarded opinion.)
And they don't even work. You guys have a much bigger Nazi problem than we do.
Dubious, but let's not go there.
-
@bobjanova said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Even if you think there are some natural rights that should not be taken away by governments (e.g. the UN UDHR), it's not at all clear that 'freedom of the press' is one of those. There's no such right in the UDHR. It does say that individuals should have the right of free expression, though as per earlier discussion even that has major caveats (libel/slander, anti-Nazi laws, rules about 'hate speech' and extremism). But there's a big jump from there to sayingh that corporations should have an uninfringable right to free broadcasting of their expression.
"Freedom of the Press" is free expression. It just means in a written instead of spoken form. It has nothing to do with corporations, but corporations are just organizations created by groups of people, i.e., people.
Of course, broadcast rights are different, because that's a distribution mechanism and using scarce resources (e.g., radio spectrum) which have other issues not really related to freedom of expression, though the owners (or regulators) may limit your ability to use that resource. Still, I can't see why the C-word should come up here.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I understand why Europeans feel the opposite way.
I think that's the most agreement we can get on this point.
(I'm kind of vaguely following the other sub-thread on natural rights etc. and I don't really agree with you there, but I'm not interested enough in that one to dig into it, so I'll leave it at that)
Now if you're worried that companies will obey EU rules even if they are not forced to, well then I guess this shows you're worried that the US is loosing its international clout
We're not exerting our influence on American companies to follow the American conception of rights in foreign markets. We're not coming to liberate you.
Are you so sure? You're mentioning a bit further Cuties, and it very much seems to me that the American reaction to it is now driving the way the movie is perceived/distributed in Europe. Now you'll argue that your vision of it is Better and the European (French) was Wrong, but it remains that ultimately if Netflix decides to pull out the movie everywhere in the world (not saying they're doing, or going to do it, but it's not hard to imagine they would), it would be under American pressure -- even if it was breaking US law there is nothing in European law that would force them to do so.
I remember another case of a small company (or maybe non-profit? doesn't matter) that couldn't do business with Iran because no bank accepted to handle the transaction because they were all afraid they would break US sanctions. Yet the company was operating under EU rules (that allowed those transactions with Iran), the banks were all European ones (and would have had special EU guarantees to back that transaction, it was at the time when the US just reneged on the Iran agreement so it was very politically contentious) and the transaction would have at no point crossed into the US. But the banks still didn't want to do it, because the American influence was strong enough.
There are countless other examples, it's a trope to say that US rules and culture and perception of society is influencing the rest of the world, and that European companies will naturally do what the US wants them to do even if that wasn't mandatory. I believe it's so much part of the current balance of power that you are not even aware of it.
Note that I'm not complaining about it (which doesn't mean I'm happy with it either!). I very much understand how the balance of power works, and how there is nothing naturally immoral for one group in a stronger position to push for their view to be accepted by others, and for companies to follow US rules even if not mandatory because it's just easier for them to do so. And I recognise that part of what the EU is doing is trying to shift that balance of power, or taking advantage of a shift that is (or might be) happening, to do to the US exactly what the US has been doing to the EU for years. And I'm not particularly happy that either side is doing it.
But you will get relatively little sympathy from me on that front.
We're talking about something that someone printed, so the proper comparison is "a libel." The very act of creating child pornography harms the children involved, which is why that is illegal. The very act of printing the libel is not.
I'm not sure what the "is not" refers to. If it's "is not illegal" well then by definition of libel in French law, yes it is. If it's "is not harming the children [or anyone]" then I guess the spirit of the law (about libel) is that a libel is only hurtful if someone hears it (you can scream whatever you want in the middle of the forest, it doesn't matter). So yes, the act of publishing does create some harm. Looking at it backwards: there is only libel if someone is hurt by an allegation (I can't libel you by saying something that you agree with, even if it's wrong). If there isn't any media (in the widest sense of "medium of communication") to convey my words to you, you wouldn't be hurt. Therefore, the law considers that this medium is responsible in the hurt created in the end, and thus is party of the libel.
You might argue that this is a bit like blaming a gun for a murder, rather than the person who fired it. Except that would only be true if the gun doesn't have any autonomy, which isn't the case of most media. Or rather, wasn't the case of any media until the advent of forums and comments and Google. So the moral framework of "media has some responsibility" was well in place before Google came along, and Google was shoe-horned into that category (see below about comments and forums). Maybe if it had come along before the law on libel things would have been different but...
Consider, for example, a member of your parliament printing campaign material that says, falsely, that:
I know for a fact that $CANDIDATE_FOR_PRIME_MINISTER_FROM_THE_OTHER_PARTY didn't pay any taxes in the past 10 years.
Is that supposed to be libelous? From a moral perspective, at least?
It is definitely libellous in French law, as far as I know (but remember that IANAL, and I know from reading a French lawyer's blog that this branch of the law is full of tiny gotchas).
Note that the key part here is that he printed it in a campaign material (or said it in a public meeting). If he said it in e.g. a private meeting, then it would still be libellous but it wouldn't be an offense (I just checked the law to be sure... I thought in that case it wouldn't be, legally, a libel, but it actually is, but it's not an offense).
So $CANDIDATE_E_LABEL_TOO_LONG$ can sue the MP for libel. Now MP can use the "exception of truth" (similar to what you mentioned in another post above), by showing (to the tribunal) some proof that it's true (or at least, some proof that MP acted in good faith and really had something to back up his allegation). If he can't produce such proof, then he'll be condemned for libel (and would be forced, for example, to remove an article on his website that says so).
So back to your questions, yes it's libellous, both morally and legally, but it's only an offense if 1) it's public and 2) it's not true.
(note here as a side-line that one of the specificity of the law about libel is that there is a very short prescription, 3 months IIRC, so it's assumed that if $CANDIDATE$ hasn't complained in that time, well, too bad for him. That is a procedural detail, however it does play a very important role in cases like this, as this means the restriction to freedom of speech only applies in cases where the victim reacts quickly enough, which is supposed to reflect the strength to which they oppose the allegation! There are some special rules on the special rules as to when does the 3 months period start, and things that can extend it, and I'm definitely out of my depth here, but let's just say that you can't start a libel claim years later.)
Now consider a newspaper that, in this scenario, prints the headline
$PM_CANDIDATE PAID NO TAXES IN LAST DECADE SAYS $OPPOSING_MP
Is that libelous? In my view, it shouldn't be. It isn't even false. The one candidate did say the other candidate didn't pay taxes.
I think that headline isn't libellous by itself. However it would very much depend how the article presents the claim. If it's very careful to only say "MP said such and such and we're only quoting MP on that", that would be probably be OK.
Now (skipping your next newspaper quoting the first one, which is just adding one more indirection) you're going to say that Google is doing the same thing, just saying "here is $website$ that says $thing$." And I think it would probably be OK.
But now I need to side-step for one moment before we get back to Google.
Imagine that MP wrote that first statement on a forum (or as a comment on a blog) rather than in a campaign tract. That forum is very much the place that publishes the allegation (the libel). So the forum can't get away by saying "we're just quoting what was said elsewhere." They are the publisher, they are in law responsible for publishing the libel.
Which is where the law I mentioned above stepped in, and said, essentially "
SiriOKGoogleforum, we're going to protect you from all those lawsuits for posts that you publish, by saying that you're never responsible for what's appearing on your pages, because you're just acting as a dumb repository of data and not a newspaper. But in exchange, since you are a dumb repository of data, you'll have to act like one and delete data when someone [with the proper authority, under proper conditions and so on] tells you to."The forum is likely pretty happy with that since they can keep operating without having to have a lawyer check every post before publishing it.
So now we get back to Google. I'm not sure exactly what has been the legal path that led to the current situation, but currently Google says that they are operating under that law, and the judges agree with it, and everyone agree with it. So I think that Google might have been OK with the regular rules before, but they thought it was much easier for them to accept this "provider of services" definition, even though, yes, it means they're giving away some of their freedom of speech. I believe (I'm stressing all those conditionals because again IANAL so... take all this with some salt!) that rather than making sure they always ever present things in the right way (including weird edge cases that could get them in a lengthy trial such as how long can you access old versions of a page in cache?), they'd rather say "sure, fine, we're just data providers." I mean, if they didn't agree with that and wanted to use freedom of speech to defend themselves, then they would have said so in all those legal cases. Which AFAIK is not the case, meaning they find the "provider of services" status convenient.
You might argue that they are giving away their right and shouldn't have to do that. Well, you do that all the time. When you're speaking as a representative of $EMPLOYER$, you're giving away your freedom of speech to badmouth them (or rather, you're accepting that by badmouthing them you can get fired, which morally is the same). Heck, even just when you go to a movie you accept to give up, quite literally, your freedom of speech for the duration of the movie and stay quiet and not bother the other movie-goers!
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
In the kinds of debates you're talking about (a natural person versus a corporation), the corporation itself doesn't have any rights. But the owners of the corporation are natural persons entitled to the same natural law rights as anyone else. They don't lose their rights by joining the group.
Ok, you have repeated this several times and looks like you are still missing the point. The issue is not whether individual owners have rights, but whether denying those rights to the corporation affects their personal rights.
Doesn't it? If the guy who owns the most shares of Google were to rent somebody else's printing press and print a book with the URL of the news story in it, would the government be allowed to stop him?
What if the top two shareholders got together? Or the top three?
How many people need to join the group for the government to claim that this is a big enough group that the people in the group lose some of their natural rights?
Does it means that corporation can marry someone? I am pretty sure that is not possible in USA, so... does that mean that by owning single share, you are denied Right to Marry?
Marriage isn't a natural law right.
In English, the word "marriage" means two different things. Sacramental Marriage is a religious ceremony, with the rules set forth by God. There's no generalized right to participate in it.
Civil marriage was created by the government because there's a societal benefit to having couples in fewer longer term relationships rather than more shorter relationships. Gating certain benefits under the law behind civil marriage make certain kinds of fraud more difficult to perpetrate. Because civil marriage comes from the law and not from natural rights, the government is allowed to change access to it.
Also, corporations do have some rights on their own. Arguably not natural rights.
Do they? Or do the people who own the company have rights that they just don't lose because they own a company.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Would a book publisher be allowed to publish a book containing the URL?
As with any legal thing, the answer is probably "it depends." But I think it would, since the original newspaper was allowed to keep them, and Google was only condemned because they are "provider of services" and not a regular publisher.
You keep brushing away this difference as if it's just a legal technicality, and one hand it is (there is nothing fundamentally moral about this distinction) but at the same time it's entirely accepted by everyone here, so ignoring it means you voluntarily ignore how things are actually working and keep referring to how you would like them to work. That seems illogical to me, unless again your conclusion is that you think the French way is Wrong.
Let's get this straight: by discussing this French case, and leaving aside the will of any government to apply it outside of their borders (I hope we've wrapped this sub-thread by now...), what is your goal? Is it to convince yourself, or to prove me, that French law doesn't work under the same moral principles (or rather, compromises between rights) as the US one? If so, well, duh, and let's stop here. If you're actually trying to understand the logic of French law, then stop ignoring the relevant bits by saying "it shouldn't."
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
A statement like "Jews are sub-humans, let's kill them all" is much more endangering to people's life. (I'm not a lawyer, but I think (if at all), only the second half of the sentence would actually be legally problematic as a call to violence, the first part alone would just be retarded opinion.)
Neither part of the sentence is necessarily a violation of people's rights. If you say that in a shady pool hall to your lowlife buddies who are never going to get off the barstool and actually do anything harmful to anyone, you haven't actually violated anyone's rights.
I don't care about lowlifes saying dumb things to each other in shady pool halls. It's not the government's job to police that.
On the other hand, if you say it to a mob of people with torches and pitchforks gathered outside a Holocaust museum, that's different. That said, we have generally applicable laws against inciting a riot, actually rioting, and committing violence and property damage. We can and do charge people under those laws. We don't need special laws that only apply to Nazis when they're already violating regular laws.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
On the other hand, if you say it to a mob of people with torches and pitchforks gathered outside a Holocaust museum, that's different. That said, we have generally applicable laws against inciting a riot, actually rioting, and committing violence and property damage. We can and do charge people under those laws. We don't need special laws that only apply to Nazis when they're already violating regular laws.
I can agree to that in principle, and I see the "hate speech" laws you mention as more of giving a concrete example for those than something of a different category. But then I'm not sure what exactly you meant or what exactly the laws are you're talking about (which surely are different in detail everywhere).
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
In the kinds of debates you're talking about (a natural person versus a corporation), the corporation itself doesn't have any rights. But the owners of the corporation are natural persons entitled to the same natural law rights as anyone else. They don't lose their rights by joining the group.
Ok, you have repeated this several times and looks like you are still missing the point. The issue is not whether individual owners have rights, but whether denying those rights to the corporation affects their personal rights.
Doesn't it? If the guy who owns the most shares of Google were to rent somebody else's printing press and print a book with the URL of the news story in it, would the government be allowed to stop him?
What if the top two shareholders got together? Or the top three?
How many people need to join the group for the government to claim that this is a big enough group that the people in the group lose some of their natural rights?
To me it comes down to how the group (or individual) is legally viewed. Is it a simple business partnership or sole proprietorship? Full rights. Is it an artificially created entity that grants all kinds of legal protections? Up to the jurisdiction that defined the type of entity it is.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
In the kinds of debates you're talking about (a natural person versus a corporation), the corporation itself doesn't have any rights. But the owners of the corporation are natural persons entitled to the same natural law rights as anyone else. They don't lose their rights by joining the group.
Ok, you have repeated this several times and looks like you are still missing the point. The issue is not whether individual owners have rights, but whether denying those rights to the corporation affects their personal rights.
Doesn't it? If the guy who owns the most shares of Google were to rent somebody else's printing press and print a book with the URL of the news story in it, would the government be allowed to stop him?
What if the top two shareholders got together? Or the top three?
How many people need to join the group for the government to claim that this is a big enough group
Group size is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is legal status of the company, which is strictly defined by law. It does not matter if Inc company has one owner or ten million shareholders, it's still one legal person.Of course, when you are the one sole owner, you can argue in court that whatever the company does is actually done by you as a person. Or you can argue the opposite - which is actually more common in practice (using proxy company as a shield from legal responsibility). Court decides (based on law, precedent or its own deliberation).
Also, this is not really relevant for the case of published link.
that the people in the group lose some of their natural rights?
Seriously, this is called "begging the question".
With the risk of being insulting, I am going to spell it: I claim that these people do not lose any natural rights. Their rights are separate from the rights of the legal entity they own or in which they participate. Infringing on the rights of the legal person might affect some connected persons, but it depends on the right and on the case and even on the type of entity and type of connection (ie it's not limited to owners).
Does it means that corporation can marry someone? I am pretty sure that is not possible in USA, so... does that mean that by owning single share, you are denied Right to Marry?
Marriage isn't a natural law right.
Let's assume it is.
Also, corporations do have some rights on their own. Arguably not natural rights.
Do they? Or do the people who own the company have rights that they just don't lose because they own a company.
No, they do have rights on their own. I have checked some legal textbooks
-
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Let's get this straight: by discussing this French case, and leaving aside the will of any government to apply it outside of their borders (I hope we've wrapped this sub-thread by now...), what is your goal? Is it to convince yourself, or to prove me, that French law doesn't work under the same moral principles (or rather, compromises between rights) as the US one? If so, well, duh, and let's stop here. If you're actually trying to understand the logic of French law, then stop ignoring the relevant bits by saying "it shouldn't."
My goal with respect to you and other non-Americans in the conversation, is to convince you that French law is wrong to make the distinction between "media organizations" and "providers of services" and that you should attempt to convince your elected officials to change it.
My goal with respect to others in the conversation who are US-based (some of whom are probably lurking), is to convince them that drawing a distinction between "the media" and anybody else exercising their right to Freedom of the Press would be a mistake because the French got screwy results when they tried.
If you're unhappy with that answer and want to duck out of the thread, that's fine. Just let me know. Otherwise, you put a lot of effort into your other post this morning, and I feel like it deserves a response a little later.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Let's get this straight: by discussing this French case, and leaving aside the will of any government to apply it outside of their borders (I hope we've wrapped this sub-thread by now...), what is your goal? Is it to convince yourself, or to prove me, that French law doesn't work under the same moral principles (or rather, compromises between rights) as the US one? If so, well, duh, and let's stop here. If you're actually trying to understand the logic of French law, then stop ignoring the relevant bits by saying "it shouldn't."
My goal with respect to you and other non-Americans in the conversation, is to convince you that French law is wrong to make the distinction between "media organizations" and "providers of services" and that you should attempt to convince your elected officials to change it.
Well, it's good that you actually wrote this, because I don't think I would ever be able to figure it out.
Btw, this distinction is quite French-specific and definitely not universal across Europe (although there is usually a category of "telecommunication services" and "broadcast services", but that is something quite different).
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
On the other hand, if you say it to a mob of people with torches and pitchforks gathered outside a Holocaust museum, that's different. That said, we have generally applicable laws against inciting a riot, actually rioting, and committing violence and property damage. We can and do charge people under those laws. We don't need special laws that only apply to Nazis when they're already violating regular laws.
I can agree to that in principle, and I see the "hate speech" laws you mention as more of giving a concrete example for those than something of a different category. But then I'm not sure what exactly you meant or what exactly the laws are you're talking about (which surely are different in detail everywhere).
I don't think I mentioned American hate speech laws, because we really don't have any.
It's illegal to burn down a museum about dinosaurs where you live, right? Or to assault someone who works in a dinosaur museum?
In the US, the same laws that protect dinosaur museums protect Holocaust museums. Those are the laws I'm referring to.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
My goal with respect to you and other non-Americans in the conversation, is to convince you that French law is wrong to make the distinction between "media organizations" and "providers of services" and that you should attempt to convince your elected officials to change it.
I should have asked this question earlier because yes, I'm probably going to bail out here. I mean, I'm not opposed to discussing whether my idea are right or not, but... for one thing, I'll only do that with someone who's ready to accept the idea that their ideas might be wrong as well (which doesn't sound at all like you do), and for another, it would require working back to this moral/philosophical idea of what are rights and so on and to be frank... I just don't have the energy to think deeply enough for that. I'm afraid I've never been much of a philosopher and I feel that I couldn't do justice to the ideas that underpin my society.
(I'm more of an engineer, I'm OK with describing a complex system and how all the bits and bobs work together and how everything is logical if you accept the fundamental constraints of a device, rather than justify why those fundamental constraints are really there in the first place...)
My goal with respect to others in the conversation who are US-based (some of whom are probably lurking), is to convince them that drawing a distinction between "the media" and anybody else exercising their right to Freedom of the Press would be a mistake because the French got screwy results when they tried.
I still contend that you misunderstand things (and that's annoying me), as French law does not make a distinction between "media" and "everyone else" but rather between "provider of service" and "everyone else." To me the distinction is not born from giving a special status to the media that would give them special rights denied to the others, but the other way round, to protect "providers of services" in exchange from them giving up some rights. Arguably it's to protect them from a risk that only exists because the law said they were responsible in the first place, and I understand that this is probably the basic idea that you disagree with, but I still think it's important to see how things stack together to get to this result.
And leaving aside the "applying law outside of France bit" (which thankfully didn't hold), I am not convinced that the results are that screwy. It's a bit wonky with the "newspaper can keep the article but not Google" but that doesn't sound fundamentally flawed (it's a compromise, for sure, but one that does seem actually workable).
I've said it before (or did? maybe it was in a bit that I removed before posting...), I see it somewhat similar to an accountant who loses his "freedom of speech" of publishing internal numbers about a company whereas a newspaper could publish those numbers -- not because the newspaper has a particular protection, but because by being the accountant with a specific accounting role, the accountant is giving up some of his freedom of speech in exchange to having access to private company information (and duty of honesty in producing accounts and so on).
If you're unhappy with that answer and want to duck out of the thread, that's fine. Just let me know. Otherwise, you put a lot of effort into your other post this morning, and I feel like it deserves a response a little later.
I've certainly got less motivation to keep answering now that I know that you're not trying to understand how something you're not familiar with works, but to convince me that I'm wrong. But that doesn't mean I won't keep discussing and feel free to answer my post if you wish. Though I would also understand if at that point you said that you don't want to waste your time, that's fine.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I don't think I mentioned American hate speech laws, because we really don't have any.
No, but you mentioned "European hate speech laws". And I'm not really sure what that refers to, because 1) IANAL, 2) I'm too
to google it, and 3) they're probably different in different EU countries.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I don't think I mentioned American hate speech laws, because we really don't have any.
I agree with you on that, I don't think hate speech laws are a good thing (and unfortunately, I'm in a country that's quite fond of them). "Regular" laws e.g. inciting a riot and libel/insult etc. should be enough to deal with most cases, the sentencing range for them is already large enough (for example inciting someone to commit a crime that actually happened is punishable with the same sentencing range as the crime itself, and if the crime didn't happen the incitation is still punishable by up to 5 years of prison, that's a pretty stiff sentence!).
I remember the debate when the first "holocaust denials" laws came around and I don't think they did anything to pacify that topic, or to quell the idiocy of the far right (like, the actual neo-nazis and truly racist far right). If anything, those laws have been constant fodder to conspiracy theorists ("if they made it illegal to speak about it that's because they don't want the truth to come out!").
But then even with "regular" laws, there will always be a difference in sensibility. At what point does an affirmation "damage the honour or reputation" of someone and thus becomes a "libel?" There is an (Atlantic-)ocean-wide interpretation gap hidden in there...
-
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
My goal with respect to you and other non-Americans in the conversation, is to convince you that French law is wrong to make the distinction between "media organizations" and "providers of services" and that you should attempt to convince your elected officials to change it.
I should have asked this question earlier because yes, I'm probably going to bail out here. I mean, I'm not opposed to discussing whether my idea are right or not, but... for one thing, I'll only do that with someone who's ready to accept the idea that their ideas might be wrong as well (which doesn't sound at all like you do), and for another, it would require working back to this moral/philosophical idea of what are rights and so on and to be frank... I just don't have the energy to think deeply enough for that. I'm afraid I've never been much of a philosopher and I feel that I couldn't do justice to the ideas that underpin my society.
I assumed you were having this conversation with the same (or, the opposite) goal as I was: I thought you were trying to convince me that I was wrong.
I'm certainty willing to consider your ideas if you're willing to share them. But if you feel like you can't do them justice, that's OK too.
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I've certainly got less motivation to keep answering now that I know that you're not trying to understand how something you're not familiar with works, but to convince me that I'm wrong. But that doesn't mean I won't keep discussing and feel free to answer my post if you wish. Though I would also understand if at that point you said that you don't want to waste your time, that's fine.
If you're not interested in continuing the conversation, then I'm not going to keep typing things at you. That wouldn't be polite. This has been a good chat. (I mean that sincerely, BTW.)
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I assumed you were having this conversation with the same (or, the opposite) goal as I was: I thought you were trying to convince me that I was wrong.
I guess I have a fundamentally different position, where I'm not really interested in trying to convince people that they're wrong unless we're going to spend some time together (live in the same society etc.). I'm very interested in understanding what other people think (believe), and how they build their laws (society etc.) from there, but I'm not really sanguine about changing them.
Part of it is that I don't really have a strong evangelical streak (i.e. "spreading my beliefs"), I'm more of a "live and let live" disposition. Part of it is that I know how futile debating on core ideas, especially on the internet, can be. Not that people never change their minds, but that they never do so in a single moment of reading a single good argument, and therefore it's too much tedious work. And I'm here to have a good time, not to get bored!
I'm certainty willing to consider your ideas if you're willing to share them. But if you feel like you can't do them justice, that's OK too.
Like I said, I'm more at ease with describing the "how" than the "why..." And I'm also less interested in discussing the "why", even when I know how to articulate it, because... well I never made it past the first chapter of any philosophy book, basically. It just sounds too remote and too abstract for me to make much sense of it.
If you're not interested in continuing the conversation, then I'm not going to keep typing things at you. That wouldn't be polite. This has been a good chat. (I mean that sincerely, BTW.)
Apologies if this feels like I'm jumping ship, especially after having drawn long answers from you.
I'm still reading this thread, so I'll keep telling you when you're wrong!
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Let's get this straight: by discussing this French case, and leaving aside the will of any government to apply it outside of their borders (I hope we've wrapped this sub-thread by now...), what is your goal? Is it to convince yourself, or to prove me, that French law doesn't work under the same moral principles (or rather, compromises between rights) as the US one? If so, well, duh, and let's stop here. If you're actually trying to understand the logic of French law, then stop ignoring the relevant bits by saying "it shouldn't."
My goal with respect to you and other non-Americans in the conversation, is to convince you that French law is wrong to make the distinction between "media organizations" and "providers of services" and that you should attempt to convince your elected officials to change it.
Well, it's good that you actually wrote this, because I don't think I would ever be able to figure it out.
Btw, this distinction is quite French-specific and definitely not universal across Europe (although there is usually a category of "telecommunication services" and "broadcast services", but that is something quite different).
Wait, aren't you arguing that the owners that the courts should be able to punish Google['s owners] for things that would not get a newspaper ['s owners] in trouble?
If not "the press is entitled to special treatment here" or "Google is entitled to especially bad treatment here," what is the basis for that argument?
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I keep having the impression that most of this misunderstanding is because of your focus on these “natural rights.” I tried finding an equivalent concept in Dutch law, but (maybe partly due to that IANAL), couldn’t find anything of the sort.
What is this link intended to prove? You post it as if it supports your POV of this being natural rights, but the only time the word “natural” appears on the page it is in:—
Article 1 ("A1P1")[47] provides that "every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions".
You have Freedom of the Press where you live, right?
Since we’re throwing Wikipedia articles around, more than you do, apparently.
If the government wanted to take away Freedom of the Press, how would they do it? Assume whatever move they're making has popular support.
They would negotiate with representatives of the press and come to a mutual agreement that the press will not publish whatever things the government says it doesn’t want to see. The press would then do it anyway and the politicians would say, “But we had an agreement!”
But if you want actual mechanics, they would have to alter article 7 section 1 of the constitution. Oh, and probably article 16 as well.
Again, not sure what you’re trying to prove here.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Natural rights are rights that aren't created by the government and thus can't be taken away by the government.
Which is patent nonsense. People or organisations in positions of power can give rights and take away any rights they can get away with.
Let’s put it this way: why couldn’t the American government take away your right to, say, life? In practical terms, not because there’s a law against it — and, for the same of argument, you may assume there’s popular support for this.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
North Korea does not have a legitimate government.
By whose standards? By their own, the Kim dynasty most certainly is a legitimate government. By the standards of plenty of other countries, the Kim dynasty is also a legitimate enough government to have diplomatic relations with North Korea. The USA doesn’t share that point of view, but that makes it an illegitimate government in the eyes of the USA.
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I'm not opposed to discussing whether my idea are right or not, but... for one thing, I'll only do that with someone who's ready to accept the idea that their ideas might be wrong as well (which doesn't sound at all like you do),
That much was obvious the moment he started about God-given rights, really …
-
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Gurth said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I keep having the impression that most of this misunderstanding is because of your focus on these “natural rights.” I tried finding an equivalent concept in Dutch law, but (maybe partly due to that IANAL), couldn’t find anything of the sort.
What is this link intended to prove? You post it as if it supports your POV of this being natural rights, but the only time the word “natural” appears on the page it is in:—
Article 1 ("A1P1")[47] provides that "every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions".
"Natural rights" and "human rights" are two different words for the same concept.
You have Freedom of the Press where you live, right?
Since we’re throwing Wikipedia articles around, more than you do, apparently.
Does Reporters Without Borders consider "The Press" to be a discrete group when calculating those rankings? Because if so, I'm suspicions of their calculation methods.
If the government wanted to take away Freedom of the Press, how would they do it? Assume whatever move they're making has popular support.
They would negotiate with representatives of the press and come to a mutual agreement that the press will not publish whatever things the government says it doesn’t want to see. The press would then do it anyway and the politicians would say, “But we had an agreement!”
I can't tell if this is a joke or not. If it's not, again, what about organizations that publish things that aren't "The Press" and thus wouldn't have representatives at that meeting?
But if you want actual mechanics, they would have to alter article 7 section 1 of the constitution. Oh, and probably article 16 as well.
If your government were to do that, would you consider them to be legitimate? Or would you try either to leave or to take up arms against them?
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Natural rights are rights that aren't created by the government and thus can't be taken away by the government.
Which is patent nonsense. People or organisations in positions of power can give rights and take away any rights they can get away with.
Let’s put it this way: why couldn’t the American government take away your right to, say, life? In practical terms, not because there’s a law against it — and, for the same of argument, you may assume there’s popular support for this.
If the US government were to repeal the First Amendment, and then violate its provisions, it wouldn't be the US Government as currently Constituted. That would be different enough that it would be an illegitimate government. People would either take up arms or flee.
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
North Korea does not have a legitimate government.
By whose standards? By their own, the Kim dynasty most certainly is a legitimate government. By the standards of plenty of other countries, the Kim dynasty is also a legitimate enough government to have diplomatic relations with North Korea. The USA doesn’t share that point of view, but that makes it an illegitimate government in the eyes of the USA.
Establishing diplomatic relations with a country as a means to hopefully avoid war is a little different than endorsing the country as illegitimate.
Luckily, you don't have that problem. You're just shitposting on the internet. Do you consider the Kim regime to be "legitimate?"
@remi said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
I'm not opposed to discussing whether my idea are right or not, but... for one thing, I'll only do that with someone who's ready to accept the idea that their ideas might be wrong as well (which doesn't sound at all like you do),
That much was obvious the moment he started about God-given rights, really …
Look, dude. If you want to have this conversation in The Garage, we can. Reflexively trolling someone because they dared to mention a super common philosophy because you have some sort of beef with the country they come from is best done in that part of the forum.
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Luckily, you don't have that problem. You're just shitposting on the internet. Do you consider the Kim regime to be "legitimate?"
I'm going to assume his post was taking issue with your definition of "legitimate".
Is the NK government awful? Yes, I'm sure there's no disagreement here.
Does that mean it's not "legitimate"? Whatever that is even supposed to mean, I guess the problem here is "according to whom?" According to their own laws, I assume it is.The only way I see that a government is not seen as "legitimate" internationally is when there used to be an internationally accepted government and recently power changed (e.g. coup, revolution...) by means that are themselves not accepted. But even then, if that new government becomes entrenched, it is at some point accepted as the status quo. The question if something is a legitimate government according to international recognition isn't really concerned with if it's a good or a terrible government.
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
The only way I see that a government is not seen as "legitimate" internationally is when there used to be an internationally accepted government and recently power changed (e.g. coup, revolution...) by means that are themselves not accepted.
What's your opinion on Taiwan?
-
@mikehurley said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
In the kinds of debates you're talking about (a natural person versus a corporation), the corporation itself doesn't have any rights. But the owners of the corporation are natural persons entitled to the same natural law rights as anyone else. They don't lose their rights by joining the group.
Ok, you have repeated this several times and looks like you are still missing the point. The issue is not whether individual owners have rights, but whether denying those rights to the corporation affects their personal rights.
Doesn't it? If the guy who owns the most shares of Google were to rent somebody else's printing press and print a book with the URL of the news story in it, would the government be allowed to stop him?
What if the top two shareholders got together? Or the top three?
How many people need to join the group for the government to claim that this is a big enough group that the people in the group lose some of their natural rights?
To me it comes down to how the group (or individual) is legally viewed. Is it a simple business partnership or sole proprietorship? Full rights. Is it an artificially created entity that grants all kinds of legal protections? Up to the jurisdiction that defined the type of entity it is.
Do you see a problem with the government having the ability to designate that some groups of people are entitled to one set of rights and another group of people being entitled to a different set of rights?
Remember, we're talking about a group of people that publish a newspaper being allowed to put up a webpage that says negative things about a third party.
But then a different group of people that publish search engine results [Google] are not allowed to put up a webpage that says "The newspaper website has a page that mentions this guy's name."
-
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@Kamil-Podlesak said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
In the kinds of debates you're talking about (a natural person versus a corporation), the corporation itself doesn't have any rights. But the owners of the corporation are natural persons entitled to the same natural law rights as anyone else. They don't lose their rights by joining the group.
Ok, you have repeated this several times and looks like you are still missing the point. The issue is not whether individual owners have rights, but whether denying those rights to the corporation affects their personal rights.
Doesn't it? If the guy who owns the most shares of Google were to rent somebody else's printing press and print a book with the URL of the news story in it, would the government be allowed to stop him?
What if the top two shareholders got together? Or the top three?
How many people need to join the group for the government to claim that this is a big enough group Group size is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is legal status of the company, which is strictly defined by law. It does not matter if Inc company has one owner or ten million shareholders, it's still one legal person.Of course, when you are the one sole owner, you can argue in court that whatever the company does is actually done by you as a person. Or you can argue the opposite - which is actually more common in practice (using proxy company as a shield from legal responsibility). Court decides (based on law, precedent or its own deliberation).
Also, this is not really relevant for the case of published link.
Of course it is. That's what we're talking about here. Obviously, to the extent that Freedom of the Press is a thing, it has to apply to individuals, right? Clearly it applies to some companies also, because it applies to the newspaper (which is just as much a company as Google is). Why would it apply to some companies/groups of people and not others?
Especially since the newspaper is actually saying, in its own voice, the derogatory things about a third party. Google is just reporting the fact that the newspaper said something about the guy.
that the people in the group lose some of their natural rights?
Seriously, this is called "begging the question".
With the risk of being insulting, I am going to spell it: I claim that these people do not lose any natural rights. Their rights are separate from the rights of the legal entity they own or in which they participate. Infringing on the rights of the legal person might affect some connected persons, but it depends on the right and on the case and even on the type of entity and type of connection (ie it's not limited to owners).
How does a company act on its own rights without the will of its owners? Is it possible for a company to act against its owners' interests?
-
@topspin said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
Luckily, you don't have that problem. You're just shitposting on the internet. Do you consider the Kim regime to be "legitimate?"
I'm going to assume his post was taking issue with your definition of "legitimate".
Is the NK government awful? Yes, I'm sure there's no disagreement here.
Does that mean it's not "legitimate"? Whatever that is even supposed to mean, I guess the problem here is "according to whom?" According to their own laws, I assume it is.As I understand it, you believe that there's such a thing as a universal morality with rules that are constant across time and culture, right?
A government that acts consistently immorally loses the legitimate claim to rule over its people. The people, then, ought to rebel and overthrow the tyrannical government, and non-tyrannical governments should help those people and support them over the despotic government.
There's realpolitik reasons why 160 countries have diplomatic relations with North Korea, but that doesn't mean that the Kim regime legitimately represents his people. Or that NK or the world would be worse off in the long term if the US were to "liberate" North Korea. (The war would be bad in the short term, which is why we don't do it.)
-
@GuyWhoKilledBear said in Another GDPR? Electric googleoo?:
But then a different group of people that publish search engine results [Google] are not allowed to put up a webpage that says "The newspaper website has a page that mentions this guy's name."
I'll just note that IIRC in the case where I actually read the ECJ decision (which was the case where the ECJ said to the CNIL "lol get fucked" about applying the dereferencing outside of France), the original content was a libelous blog article for which neither the author of the blog post, nor the administrator of the blog, could be contacted. So the French ruling on "Google must remove links" was intended as a kind of stop-gap measure instead of removing the original content (I assume the content could still be removed by asking the ISP but it's likely a different procedure in judicial terms).
That is a bit different from the other case where a newspaper was allowed to keep the article, but not Google, but in that other case I can't remember if I actually read the actual ruling (as opposed to just various websites reporting on it). So I'm slightly wary of how to interpret those two decisions, because they do not exactly represent the same situation.
In other words, keep in mind that each judicial decision only really applies to the set of specific circumstances of that specific case, and does not necessarily mean that the same decision would be reached in a case with slightly different circumstances!
European Convention on Human Rights - Wikipedia
