>As we’ve argued in the past, companies should limit their compliance with foreign governments which are not democratic and where they do not have employees or other assets on the ground.
Should a company also limit their compliance to a foreign government even if they are "democratic" and where they do not have employees or other assets on the ground?
These countries will just block Medium, Snap, etc, if they don't comply. I don't see how fighting them on this is actually any better except that you get to pat yourself on the back.
To me, the more worrying cases are when governments demand removal of content worldwide, and that's being done by Western governments in the EU and Canada. Why is the EFF not demanding companies pull out of those countries?
Is withholding the best technology - that otherwise presumably would increase the quality of life of a nation's citizens if they had access to it - a good method of protest, or will it simply lead to other actors who are okay to support censorship and such to fill the gaps? I'm not sure of the answer.
In undemocratic countries, I think the answer is no, since the elites do not really need to accede to citizen's demands. In democratic nations, I think it depends.
I think the company's complaints have to seem reasonable to the populace and for there to be no credible alternative. Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin for a year in the hope that would put pressure in lawmakers to change the rules, but instead local competitors who were willing to deal with the new regulations setup shop and Uber and Lyft both returned.
I don't think Medium or Snap are important enough to have any leverage anywhere.
I try to take a lesson from supermarkets: what blew the mind of many Russians during the Cold War was the existence of supermarkets. Many assumed they were either propaganda or only available to wealthy Westerners, and it had an extremely corrosive effect on the beliefs of Russians who understood how generally available such stores were in the US. The existence of supermarkets turned out to be one of our most powerful propaganda tools!
At a practical level, one of the most important things we can do if we really believe in Western society is simply live it and let other people be exposed to it. Time and time again, simply living well is infectious and does more to undermine totalitarian regimes than pretty much anything else. Most people (on any side of an issue) really want the same thing -- to live a nice life. Fighting stems from different visions of how to do that (or an inability to do that because of poverty, oppression, etc), but in a competition between ideals, the winner is generally the one that lets people live "better".
So as a method of protest, I'd argue it's a complete failure: it removes our most powerful tools, which are primarily exposure based, while leaving a power vacuum behind and getting virtually nothing in return.
The flow of culture from sharing messaging platforms is simply too powerful a tool to abandon as mere "protest".
Supermarkets weren't 1) being made directly available within the Soviet Bloc and 2) weren't being utilised for propaganda or censorship against Soviet and Communist dissidents.
The existence of the WWW is known. The existence of sites such as Medium or Snap are known. If those exist, but are blocked either by the Saudi regime, or with very clear "this content has been censored at the request of your government" then the abject political control is revealed.
Power often is most effective where it can act covertly. Forcing the hand, or even showing it, can weaken it.
My point wasn't that Snap (et al) were supermarkets; my point was that the US and Saudi Arabia sharing Snap allowed the Saudi Arabians to see metaphorical supermarkets inside of the US by easing communication.
I believe that this is significantly more powerful than the other thing, precisely because revealing a failure of providing a standard of living is more motivational than revealing the use of power in a regime like Saudi Arabia.
"Everyone knows the government filters X, but who cares, we can just use Y!" vs "Why do Americans all seem to have Z, but we don't?"
I suspect there are plenty of channels through which supermarkets may be observed....
Though this raises the question of how, across multiple cultures, regimes, and times since the early 20th century, government censorship has been perceived.
My understanding is that Pravda and Isvestia were poorly regarded in the Soviet Union. The old joke: "There is no information in Izvestia, there is no truth in Pravda".
Too many people are happy to pat themselves on the back for shallow, extremist "ethics" because it's simple to execute and emotionally rewarding, while there's a dearth of engaging with messiness that's life.
It's very visible to the population when a regime blocks a popular site or app.
That shines a bright light on the regime's censorship.
It also puts pressure on the regime to relax their iron grip, since it makes them look bad to their own citizens and to the rest of the world.
But implementing the regime's censorship inside your app or site hides the censorship. It reduces the pressure from citizens and the international community.
You're now collaborating with the regime against your customers.
Doing the right thing is almost always better than collaboration.
I will not use my engineering time and talent as a tool of your repression, and if you block me, your citizens and the whole world can see it.
(By the way, the EFF is doing amazing work with advocacy, legal affairs, certbot, etc. This Saudi article reminded me to give again: https://supporters.eff.org/donate )
Couldn't you achieve the same goal by exposing censorship inside your app through the UI? For example, rather than hide the content entirely, replace it with a notice that "This content has been blocked in your country to comply with laws by your government."
Saudis are LPs in a lot of funds and funds of funds.
So are most not super human rights friendly sovereign wealth funds like Singapore... where it's technically illegal to be publicly gay and I know they use to ban WSJ but not sure if they still do.
I've been wondering about something similar recently. What can other countries do to an American webmaster if their laws are being ignored?
If you allow non-US IPs, does that mean you're implicitly accepting that you're serving other countries and thus you're expected to comply with any of their laws? What if you're selling an online service and a foreign user has a US credit card and billing address?
As for the linked topic... Saudi Arabia is a pretty horrible country in many aspects. I'd go one step further and say that American companies shouldn't be doing any business with them. This is a country where women are regarded as second-class citizens. It's fine if some people want to continue with their ultra-traditional gender roles, but you shouldn't impose it on everyone else.
Trial in absentia - literally just charge you under their laws and convict you without you ever being involved.
They can apply to your country of residence to have you extradited to face punishment, but chances are the country you are residing in is not going to extradite you. Canada, for instance, will not extradite you for anything which is not also considered criminal in Canada.
If you ever leave your country of residence, they can apply anywhere else you travel to try and have you arrested and extradited. One of those countries may have different rules, or the person getting handed your file may make a mistake or not care since you're a non-resident/non-citizen.
If you are ever extradited to or intentionally travel to the country in question, you will face your punishment there. If you ever unintentionally travel to the country in question (plane lost an engine and you diverted there for emergency landing?) you will face your punishment there.
All-in-all, not a big deal for most people. Not something I'd want hanging over my head though.
27 comments
[ 14.3 ms ] story [ 1107 ms ] threadShould a company also limit their compliance to a foreign government even if they are "democratic" and where they do not have employees or other assets on the ground?
If anyone at the EFF is reading this, the link tied to 'sustained attack' is behind a paywall; is there an alternative source that could be used?
To me, the more worrying cases are when governments demand removal of content worldwide, and that's being done by Western governments in the EU and Canada. Why is the EFF not demanding companies pull out of those countries?
by who's standards?
I think the company's complaints have to seem reasonable to the populace and for there to be no credible alternative. Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin for a year in the hope that would put pressure in lawmakers to change the rules, but instead local competitors who were willing to deal with the new regulations setup shop and Uber and Lyft both returned.
I don't think Medium or Snap are important enough to have any leverage anywhere.
At a practical level, one of the most important things we can do if we really believe in Western society is simply live it and let other people be exposed to it. Time and time again, simply living well is infectious and does more to undermine totalitarian regimes than pretty much anything else. Most people (on any side of an issue) really want the same thing -- to live a nice life. Fighting stems from different visions of how to do that (or an inability to do that because of poverty, oppression, etc), but in a competition between ideals, the winner is generally the one that lets people live "better".
So as a method of protest, I'd argue it's a complete failure: it removes our most powerful tools, which are primarily exposure based, while leaving a power vacuum behind and getting virtually nothing in return.
The flow of culture from sharing messaging platforms is simply too powerful a tool to abandon as mere "protest".
The existence of the WWW is known. The existence of sites such as Medium or Snap are known. If those exist, but are blocked either by the Saudi regime, or with very clear "this content has been censored at the request of your government" then the abject political control is revealed.
Power often is most effective where it can act covertly. Forcing the hand, or even showing it, can weaken it.
I believe that this is significantly more powerful than the other thing, precisely because revealing a failure of providing a standard of living is more motivational than revealing the use of power in a regime like Saudi Arabia.
"Everyone knows the government filters X, but who cares, we can just use Y!" vs "Why do Americans all seem to have Z, but we don't?"
Though this raises the question of how, across multiple cultures, regimes, and times since the early 20th century, government censorship has been perceived.
My understanding is that Pravda and Isvestia were poorly regarded in the Soviet Union. The old joke: "There is no information in Izvestia, there is no truth in Pravda".
Elsewhere? More recently?
Sad this is dismissed so easily today.
Too many people are happy to pat themselves on the back for shallow, extremist "ethics" because it's simple to execute and emotionally rewarding, while there's a dearth of engaging with messiness that's life.
That shines a bright light on the regime's censorship.
It also puts pressure on the regime to relax their iron grip, since it makes them look bad to their own citizens and to the rest of the world.
But implementing the regime's censorship inside your app or site hides the censorship. It reduces the pressure from citizens and the international community.
You're now collaborating with the regime against your customers.
Doing the right thing is almost always better than collaboration.
I will not use my engineering time and talent as a tool of your repression, and if you block me, your citizens and the whole world can see it.
(By the way, the EFF is doing amazing work with advocacy, legal affairs, certbot, etc. This Saudi article reminded me to give again: https://supporters.eff.org/donate )
I don't think people living in these countries are unaware of the situation.
It's the difference between "I think ..." and "here is the evidence".
Sorta like what Google does for DMCA takedowns: https://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/dmca-compl...
So are most not super human rights friendly sovereign wealth funds like Singapore... where it's technically illegal to be publicly gay and I know they use to ban WSJ but not sure if they still do.
If you allow non-US IPs, does that mean you're implicitly accepting that you're serving other countries and thus you're expected to comply with any of their laws? What if you're selling an online service and a foreign user has a US credit card and billing address?
As for the linked topic... Saudi Arabia is a pretty horrible country in many aspects. I'd go one step further and say that American companies shouldn't be doing any business with them. This is a country where women are regarded as second-class citizens. It's fine if some people want to continue with their ultra-traditional gender roles, but you shouldn't impose it on everyone else.
They can apply to your country of residence to have you extradited to face punishment, but chances are the country you are residing in is not going to extradite you. Canada, for instance, will not extradite you for anything which is not also considered criminal in Canada.
If you ever leave your country of residence, they can apply anywhere else you travel to try and have you arrested and extradited. One of those countries may have different rules, or the person getting handed your file may make a mistake or not care since you're a non-resident/non-citizen.
If you are ever extradited to or intentionally travel to the country in question, you will face your punishment there. If you ever unintentionally travel to the country in question (plane lost an engine and you diverted there for emergency landing?) you will face your punishment there.
All-in-all, not a big deal for most people. Not something I'd want hanging over my head though.