Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 11:55:47 -0500 (EST)
From: dicconf <dicconf at radix.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: New list (was Re: This list is... )
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Mike B. wrote:

> At 2/13/2006 11:02 AM, dicconf wrote:
>
>> Yahoo is acting less like an Agent than like a Fawning Acolyte.  Pecuniam
>> non olet?  But it sure is smelly in this case.
>
[snippety]
>
> From what little I've heard of the Yahoo thing in China, the situation
> there was very similar.  Only the laws are different.  Yahoo operates in
> China (over a billion potential customers are a big draw for many
> industries), and therefore is subject to China's laws, just as they are
> subject to our laws here.  The fault in the cases sited lies with the laws
> of China, not so much with Yahoo's compliance with them.  They had a choice
> between criminal behavior or not doing business in that country...same as
> here or anywhere else they operate.

That's what I was saying, obliquely.  They wanted the money, and "money
does not stink".  But a lot of Netizens thought ChiCom money _did_ stink.

> That's one issue with using Yahoo of course...your information (address,
> name, posts) could be saved on a server in another country where the laws
> are very different and what you post may constitute a crime.  There may
> even be an extradition treaty with that country.  Given how insane the
> laws, and lawmakers, are in some parts of the world, this should be a real
> worry.

As I recall from my work at the State Department, extradition treaties
are commonly applicable only where the alleged crime is a crime in both
countries.  (That, for instance, is why draft dodgers couldn't be arrested
while in Canada: Canada didn't have a Selective Service Act -- never did
have, IIRC.  There was no draft, so there couldn't be any draft dodgers in
the eyes of Canadian law.  Amusingly, the first US/Canadian extradition
treaty didn't mention the crime of embezzlement, so for a while "gone to
Canada" was an euphemism for this crime.  They had a hasty conference to
negotiate a new treaty shortly after...where was I?  Oh, yes:) A Chinese
law would not be applicable in a case involving your First Amendment
rights.  On the other hand, if the ChiComs have anything corresponding to
our "Discovery", under which a party to a lawsuit can demand to see your
records, this might be invoked; but here we need to check with a lawyer.

-- Dick Eney