U.S. charges China-based Zoom employee for disrupting Tiananmen commemoration
axios.com
axios.com
This concerns me. There's only so many ways to monitor a platform, and most of the ones I can think of that could be considered "proactive" involve things like watching other peoples meetings - which doesn't seem unlikely given that this event occurred in China.
Also, while I support action on China, its sort of ironic for them to be trying to apply US law in China to punish Chinese law being applied to people in the US.
>The meetings were conducted using a videoconferencing program provided by Company-1, and were organized and hosted by U.S-based individuals, including individuals residing in the Eastern District of New York.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/china-based-executive-us-tele...
This is whataboutism.
"Is this might makes right, or is there an international legal standard and international judicial body to resolve this on a consistent basis?"
The way the OP asked it suggests OP thinks this may be "might makes right". But the question about international legal basis is a good one.
I presume you meant that as an informal straw man to represent the question as less pertinent than it is?
I am restating how I see the topic. If you think I have misinterpreted it then feel free to correct.
In summary I'd say your comment is not relevant to discussion about legal basis of the challenge. It contributes to a different topic not being discussed: "What is your personal feeling about China?" to which you've contributed a thinly veiled "Boo China."
How can what I said be interpreted as a “Boo China”? You could try to apply local laws in any superpower and be ignored. Just because I didn’t needlessly maximize generalization at the cost of context doesn’t mean I’m singling out countries.
"Jin’s co-conspirators created fake email accounts and Company-1 accounts in the names of others, including PRC political dissidents, to fabricate evidence that the hosts of and participants in the meetings to commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre were supporting terrorist organizations, inciting violence or distributing child pornography."
There's no irony.
This is some general information for HN readers to have some background context to unpack comments like the parent.
1) The entire Chinese legal system is beholden to the CCP, so you cannot compare Chinese and US legal systems or courts.
2) It's important to understand about the non-kinetic warfare doctrines of the CCP.
One of them is "lawfare" (law warfare), which is using a target country's laws against themselves. This is very effective against an open society like the US.
An example is that the CCP has funded US shell organizations to block the banning of Chinese apps in the US, in US courts.
Also, WeChat is used as a means for the CCP in mainland China to exercise control over diaspora, so it really needs to be banned outside China. One of the abuses was using WeChat to have American Chinese hoard PPE supplies this spring and mail them to China.
So when an open society tries to defend itself, you end up with what appears to be an "ironic" situation, but was actually choreographed by the CCP.
It wasn't them applying US law in China. It was US law in the US.
If you think that's bad, you have to hear about this guy named Julian Assange..
Personally I particularly hated the backdoor they installed on my Mac and only removed after significant media pressure - their initial response was "works as designed". But there were so many others.
That alone proves their mindset is completely wrong IMO.
heh. Is this common practice?
Ironically, my wife's name is easy for English speakers to pronounce, but unfortunately it is not spelled like how it's pronounced.
Freedom of speech on a private platform? How is that even enforceable?
I thought only government could not restrict speech. But private entities did not have to promote speech and had say in which speech they promoted and which they didn’t.
18 U.S. Code § 1028
He's not charged with breaking freedom of speech, he's being charged with various felonies relating to siphoning off identifying information for use by the Chinese government.