Hacker News Reader

Comment by elmerfud | Hacker News Reader

Hopefully there's an appeal on this and this judge gets reprimanded for his decision. Functionally this is the equivalent of an apartment manager or condo manager being ordered to go into someone's house, search specifically for contraband and then remove that contraband. Just because they have emergency access and repair access does not make them a law enforcement agency nor does that mean that courts can order a private companies to perform searches and seizures outside of a law enforcement getting assistance to execute a search warrant.

The supreme Court is already ruled that 4th amendment protections do extend to cell phones. This order clearly runs contrary to that.

View on HN

You are aware the United States laws do not extend outside its jurisdiction? Why do you believe 4th amendment protections are enforceable in Argentina?

If you don't believe that United States law extends outside of its jurisdiction the Coast guard would like to have a word with you which enforces US maritime law around the world in international waters. Additionally US routinely enforces its law in various aspects around the world in different countries. The US also controls what laws from other countries its citizens are allowed to enforce.

Lastly Google being a US company that operates internationally, they should absolutely refuse to honor any of this as it is in direct violation of the laws of its home country.

I don't think you read the article at all. The order was explicitly only for Argentinians.

But that order must be enforced by Google. Argentina cannot enforce it unilaterally arbitrarily without Google's help. I'm not sure you understand the mechanism of enforcement that they are requesting.

What's next? Courts in Brazil order Twitter to censor stuff?

> If you don't believe that United States law extends outside of its jurisdiction the Coast guard would like to have a word with you which enforces US maritime law around the world in international waters

Do you have a specific complaint? US courts do not allow lawsuits for things that happen in international waters unless they pass an 8-part test.

But at the same time, UN law of the sea treaties say that any nation may combat piracy in international waters. On top of that is the UN Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation [1], which adds a number of additional acts that any nation may enforce in international waters. But you should probably be glad that the US is doing the bulk of this: The United Nations is perfectly ok with a sham "trial" of any suspected wrong-doer followed by summary execution and throwing the body overboard. The US does not allow that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Suppression...

Unless the US passes extensive legislation to prevent US companies from unlawfully accessing their clients devices all over the world, Google will comply. But the US isnt likely to do that.

You wish.

This is a about Pirate IPTV , it's more likely the US will adapt this approach by finding a legal loop hole to do so.

GDPR, DMCA and similar laws seem to disagree.

If you think the GDPR is enforceable in the US you should let the surveillance capitalism industry know. You won't have to report back when you're done. We'll hear the laughing.

>> Functionally this is the equivalent of an apartment manager or condo manager being ordered to go into someone's house, search specifically for contraband and then remove that contraband

If it could be achieved at scale with no resources, a judge might have tried it; the intersection of enforceability, law, and scalability is foreboding.

Hopefully not. I strongly disagree with the decision but I think the fallout helps highlight the power these companies have to the public at large.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com