undefined | Better HN

0 pointsCalRobert1y ago0 comments

What do you mean "did not commit"?

Anyway I think you're right that the US would strongarm EU governments in to getting their way (look at privacy shield, etc.) but I still think "you're allowed to continue breaking our laws that affect people in our country while you visit us because it happens to be running on a computer you left at home" is a weak defence.

0 comments

yadaeno1y ago

We’re talking about xx million dollar dispute between allied countries, it’s not a reasonable method of conflict resolution to start throwing people in cages that work for x company until the EU gets their way.

> what do you mean “did not commit”

It’s standard around the world that employees are not held personally responsible for the crimes of the corporation they work for.

Edit: if we’re talking about an individual US citizen that’s found guilty in the EU, then the EU will go through the extradition process to have them arrested.

Teever1y ago

This isn't a dispute between the two countries, it's a dispute between the law enforcement of one country, and the people they're accusing of breaking the law from another country.

> It’s standard around the world that employees are not held personally responsible for the crimes of the corporation they work for.

Is it really so simple? Is all that the cartels missing to avoid persecution from the US gov't simply incorporating in their home state? Of course not.

Imagine that offered death by drones. You tell 'em who you want killed and they mail a package containing a drone that pops out and kills the person when it's delivered. Would it be reasonable to say "Yeah we can't arrest anyone from that company when they come to our country because they incorporated in another jurisdiction?"

yadaeno1y ago

If the EU wants to arrest someone they can submit an extradition request which the US will approve or deny after reviewing. The EU can also already arrest individuals whom are found to be criminals.

You are suggesting a totally new weapon for EU law enforcement which is to imprison individuals who are not found guilty of a crime because they work for a company that owes the EU money. That sounds a bit insane to me, I think if the EU wants to collect their fine they should find a more diplomatic approach that does not equate to a literal war crime [1]

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

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

yadaeno1y ago

> what do you mean “did not commit”

It’s standard around the world that employees are not held personally responsible for the crimes of the corporation they work for.

Edit: if we’re talking about an individual US citizen that’s found guilty in the EU, then the EU will go through the extradition process to have them arrested.

Teever1y ago

This isn't a dispute between the two countries, it's a dispute between the law enforcement of one country, and the people they're accusing of breaking the law from another country.

> It’s standard around the world that employees are not held personally responsible for the crimes of the corporation they work for.

Is it really so simple? Is all that the cartels missing to avoid persecution from the US gov't simply incorporating in their home state? Of course not.

yadaeno1y ago

If the EU wants to arrest someone they can submit an extradition request which the US will approve or deny after reviewing. The EU can also already arrest individuals whom are found to be criminals.

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

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse