749
Starlink is refusing to comply with Brazil's X ban (Update: Starlink will comply)
(www.engadget.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
749 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
59419 readers
5127 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What I find difficult to understand, is that they require said chap to be physically in the country.
Unless said law only works in case the company has a physical presence in the country (which it does, in this case), I feel it hard to get the logic to apply it to an internet service.
It's a common thing in many countries. It's, among other things, a liability issue.
If your "country #1" company does business in "country #2" then what laws apply to them?
In order to distinguish clear lines what "country #2" requires is a representative for the company to be in the country. If the company breaks "country #2"'s laws then the representative is liable for it.
Generally to be a representative you have to have a measurable stake in the transaction, you can't just be a random Jimbo, so it usually falls to a law firm (or an entity that works with one), mainly because if you need people to help your company follow the law, then they should know the law.
If the company breaks the law, the firm has to deal with that, so it's a risk for them.
In this case, X needed that representative, either they couldn't or wouldn't find one, therefore Brazil said "we can't hold you accountable to our laws, so get out of our country."
I'm super, MEGA, oversimplifying, and I'm no expert, but this is my best understanding.
Thanks, that definitely made it very simple to understand.
Still not 100% convinced on the applicability under various conditions^[and if I want to be, perhaps I should stop being lazy and go read the law], but I understand it from the Government POV. Kinda similar to the country-country hostage exchange we see in stories, which makes sure the other would have a reason not to renege on some agreement, even if they don't have a reason for mutual trust.