Re next 2 points: If you want to justify violance you need stronger triggers. Those 2 just give the US right to ban the Huawei from country or using the USD.
This looks like US doing it because it can. But then US is not facing USSR whose going to die from self-inflicted wounds. China have the most capitalist companies (Apple/etc) defending it.
> if you want to justify violance you need stronger triggers
Violating sanctions is a criminal offense under U.S. and Canadian law. Huawei chose to do business in America and Canada. Its executive chose to travel to Canada.
This is a difficult story to mangle into a morality play.
No Canada is arresting on behalf of US. On the contrary, Huawei is building 5g infra for Canada.
> Violating sanctions is a criminal offense under U.S. and Canadian law.
Just because its legal does not mean there wont be an aggressive reaction[1]. China will probably respond with force. Huawei with market exit. Then there are other actors who would respond in there own way we would never know about. US probably going to take net-hurt from this.
Do you want to hurt US market/USD ? Because thats what use of your justifications will do.
[1] edit: By that I mean non-US actors have not agreed to react aggressively. Legal implies that only US persons have.
> Do you want to hurt US market/USD ? Because thats what use of your justifications will do.
That's not going to happen. China is also not going to over-react. They're going to under-react, because their economy and global political context is at a slightly precarious point. It's why the US has been able to apply such immense tariffs without China doing anything crazy so far: they still need the US more than the US needs China (which isn't the same thing as the US not needing China at all). It's also partially why China is relatively eager to find positive ground with the US on trade issues. For example the US is currently building a coalition to reform the WTO in a manner that is detrimental to China (it caused the recent surge in Chinese interest in settling the trade dispute). The US is running perpetual trade deficits with almost everyone (specifically of importance, the major economies), which leaves most everyone having more of an interest in going along with the US rather than China on trade modifications. To say nothing of the IP issues and market barriers in place in China.
China will find a modest way to stab the US over this, unless it's resolved relatively quickly. It won't be a big deal for China, arresting one executive is not something they'll care to shake the world over at all. This isn't Jack Ma we're talking about, which would demand a big response due to his prominence and popularity. This is a nation run tightly by a Communist party that at the highest levels (ie Xi) barely likes business executives to begin with, they merely tolerate them as useful tools to get from here to there in a process that China perceives itself as going through. Executives of that sort are pawns that can be thrown away or swapped out with little concern. Overall it may be nothing more than the US acquiring a small bargaining chip at a tiny cost, which it can then release to perceived good will when it does so. It's a relatively simple political move if that's the case.
Its not just US vs China. Its US vs Market. Its the hand of market that US need to watch out for. Everytime a powerful entity acts like a madman, it gets weaker. Soon or later it will receive 1000th cut which may be one too many.
You're exaggerating what this tiny incident means to the market. Historically this doesn't show up on the list at all, it's just barely a one day top 10 business story.
The market in this context effectively means the top 30 or 40 economies. They make up the extreme majority of all global GDP.
What practical alternative to the US as an essential ally in the coming global bifurcation with China and Russia do you perceive that: EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, UK, etc - have? Who else is there? There is nobody else to help offset the enormity of China's looming power. The US has, on many occasions since WW2, done radically worse than arrest a Huawei executive over sanctions on a foreign nation. Mr. Market barely blinked over Snowden and the global espionage revelations for example, which was a thousand times worse than this incident. It had enormous commerce implications. For the most part the world went on with its business; and here we are years later, the US espionage system continues unabated (actually it's stronger now) and mostly unchallenged. This arrest will barely matter at all to Mr. Market.
You have very restricted definition of market. Market != Stock Market. Slap of market does not mean you go down, it means the profits goes to your compititors. Rise of China is textbook example here. China made the bank, while everyone who did not have compititive labor regulations got slapped for it. Globalisation basically means States getting slapped for not being competitive.
There are whole categories of companies/products (OVH/ProtonMail/etc) due to NSA. So yes USA got slapped for it too just not as visible as Rise-of-China.
Why, yes, I'd rather we didn't do business with a country that has close to 1M people in forced reeducation camps. I am OK with not profiting from some things. A dystopian "social credit" police state, for example, is apparently very high on my list of places not to invest in, be associated with, or deal with at all.
Now thats a moral argument. In a realpolitikal world, X aggresses against Y because its in X's self interest, not because Y have been bad. Under this model, China _is_ suffering from aggressions just not from Apple/etc.
The US and China should behave morally. I disagree with the real politks strategy. I'm sure many countries want to behave that way, I'm glad there is still the rule of law in the US (even as our president tries to subvert it). The US doesn't always act morally, but often it does - our laws against us companies bribing people in other countries are a good thing even though it makes it harder for us companies to operate in other places.
I'm not naive enough to think that China will suddenly reform itself, end oppression against it's people and take complete advantage of its people's incredible energy, creativity and intelligence.
Safety/Quality regulations reduces choices and quantity. This hits poor the most, as they can no longer buy inferior but cheap products and services. See China.
Instead regulations should be focus on reducing scam and misleading offerings. If someone wants to buy/use despite knowing the risks, let him.
> Safety/Quality regulations reduces choices and quantity.
They also prevent people dying when they plug in their appliance, or dying because there's lead paint on the product, or buying flour that's adulterated with alum, plaster of Paris or chalk.
The history of food and electrical regulations, on both sides of the Atlantic, are enough to convince me that rich and poor (I have been both) are better served by enough regulation to ensure basic standards are met. In the case of the US and food, prior to such regulation, adulteration was more common than not[0].
> If someone wants to buy/use despite knowing the risks, let him.
This is never the case. The risks are hidden, the product masquerades as a genuine iPhone charger, or contains unsafe substances that cannot be known without laboratory testing. Data is taken "to provide a better service", without mention of the 206 places it's sold to, or other uses for which it is mined, or the fun psychological experiments staff might run on their users.
To relate it back to the original discussion about data, I am fully in favour of regulations that demand adequate safeguards and protections of personal data, and high expectations of diligence from companies that must use such data. It goes without saying that I am in favour of severe penalties for egregious breach of such regulations.
This message was initially added more than 5 years ago and not really changed since then :)
The related ticket has been fixed and master is now having a better wording for this message https://github.com/movim/movim/issues/737.
> I certainly wouldn't want a social media company to make money from it being shared
Reddit/etc make money because of their platform not content. All of the content on reddit is available via api for free. So its definitely not the content.
You are basically normalizing violent response to a non-violent action. US can do that because FB is US company. UK cannot just because you happen to visit.
Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.
The US Congress can and has compelled appearance of non-US parties, and, while it may not have had occasion to resort to this for a non-US person (and hasn't used it's arrest power since 1935, relying instead on executive enforcement bodies and criminal statutes instead of it's recognized contempt and arrest powers), absolutely does have the legal power to send the Sergeants-at-Arms of each House to enforce such compulsory summons with force, to bring either materials or persons before the chamber.
Violence is how the government enforces law, harmful acts don't necessarily have to have a component of physical violence to be extremely bad for society (white collar fraud, misuse of identity documents to get stuff like loans, counterfeiting of currency, etc).
The UK is a sovereign nation and absolutely can enforce its laws against anyone within its borders, regardless of citizenship.
The only potential exception is diplomatic immunity, and that is only granted to the few people who are directly employed to represent a foreign nation. (And even then, such immunity is voluntarily granted by the UK government.)
> Please realize that other states are taking notes at this situation. They are waiting for US/UK/etc exec to visit and make the same excuse.
Other states aren't waiting for this at all; least of all the US. In the past when UK based executives of online gambling firms have travelled in transit via the US they have been arrested even before going through customs, in effect in international law it is somewhat akin to piracy, USG sanctioned piracy. This sort of creative use of laws to acquire information and/or people by various governments world wide has been happening for a very very long time.
> In the past when UK based executives of online gambling firms have travelled in transit via the US they have been arrested even before going through customs, in effect in international law it is somewhat akin to piracy
No, arresting people who are not subject to any privilege against arrest in international law, who are on your territory, whether or not they have passed through customs, is not, in international law, in even the slightest way “akin to piracy.”
I'd definitely not want to be bonked on the head with that. Fortunately, as the article you link to says, they can call the police to do the dirty job. "Fortunately", as in, the combined threat from the mace and the cops should suffice to convince most people.
> While serving the warrant and encouraging a witness to attend parliament "the Serjeant or his appointee may call on the full assistance of the civil authorities, including the police."
From the Wikipedia article.
So the Facebook employee was in fact under compulsion.
WW1 was monarchies (professional war-makers) still thinking war-making a major wealth gaining activity. 100 years ago they were proven horribly wrong, and ultimately triggered their extinction. After WW1, world learned that industrial activity had taken the crown from war-making. This brought WW2, socialism and democracy to world scene.
But within next decade world would realize that democrats/socialists are temporary elites filling the vacuum created by the global transition from monarchy to technocracy. This is why there will not be a WW3. Because those who are competent enought to make big money, are making it in tech. There will also not be a global resource war because such mega needs are $$$ opportunity, you can bet there are future-$$$onaires working at this problem this very second.
germany had its royal family as did russia. but a lot of the other countries were not so encumbered by stupid or naive leaders. but then you lose your direction - tech are the deserving brilliant money makers or something? and we are too smart to screw it up. ha.
No, it boots prior/separate to the board itself. It's basically a mini-PC embedded in the board that has it's own CPU/Memory and tentacles attached to everything in the mainboard.
No, the controller runs it's own totally separate OS, has connections to most/all the buses and is able to emulate devices whether you have drivers installed or not.
Absolutely. Though nomad lifestyle isnt really for me. Malta has a cool residency program [1]: pay only $15k/yr + territorial tax and live and work from there. Georgia is a good and cheaper option, a more natural and open country but not as developed (developing very fast though). Best thing is ease of getting residency, if you can afford it you will get it. No artificial barrier. So can bring your employees from all over the world and open an office.
So yeah not paying $20+k/yr to any goverment either. The moment I hit that I am out.
Then Canada gets to do the arresting and jailing.
Re next 2 points: If you want to justify violance you need stronger triggers. Those 2 just give the US right to ban the Huawei from country or using the USD.
This looks like US doing it because it can. But then US is not facing USSR whose going to die from self-inflicted wounds. China have the most capitalist companies (Apple/etc) defending it.