> when it comes to laws, suddenly they operate under US law alone

And when it comes to taxes...

... and when it comes to taxes they operate under US law, meaning that if they repatriate any foreign profits, they will have to pay taxes. If they decide not to, like Apple has decided, they won't be liable for any tax payment.

There's absolutely nothing special in this case because WhatsApp happens to be operating on the internet. Suppose they were a mail order company based in Brazil but serving customers internationally by post. If a US judge issued a court order in the US requiring the company to hand over business records stored on paper in Barzil, he would have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Brazilian law protecting the privacy of information stored in Brazil would prevail. there would be no controversy about this.

The fact that WhatsApp's info is stored on servers rather than paper records is irrelevant. The jurisdiction in which the records reside applies. Although the fact that their servers don't even store the information requested anyway should be.

> Suppose they were a mail order company based in Brazil but serving customers internationally by post. If a US judge issued a court order in the US requiring the company to hand over business records stored on paper in Barzil, he would have no jurisdiction whatsoever.

Fair point. But to continue that analogy, the US judge is quite free to ban the commercial operation of that Brazilian company in the USA. Which is exactly what happens, and is happening here.

OK. So now you're banning a company for operating in your country, because they choose not to become criminals in their own jurisdiction. So why ban them for a day or two? What's that supposed to accomplish? Logically if this was the justification they would ban it permanently. Banning it temporarily is just playing spiteful games that isn't going to accomplish anything.

That makes sense to me. But there really is no international law that's coherent and enforceable. It's a hard problem.

I think given that, it is reasonable for local jurisdictions to act as they see fit.

For everyone to act as they see fit, I believe.

You mean as a Freeman of the Land? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

As an ideological position it has some interesting points to make, but in a contemporary legal setting it's difficult to find footing.

My personal position is informed by Hobbes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book) ) in that we have to make compromise with our individual liberty to bring about a greater good.

> "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."

> in a contemporary legal setting it's difficult to find footing.

Freemnan-on-the-land is totaly quackery in a comptemporary legal setting. It's like homeopathy, but for laws. It's Creationism, it's snake oil. Fundamentally it presumes/assumes that laws work differently from how the organs of the state think they work.

Law ≠ Science. It's an interesting thought experiment. It's not like homoeopathy or creationism in that legal precedent emerges by evaluating any reasonable legal argument and their counterpoints and determining which among many is 'right'. It is not hard to conceive of a "freeman" society but what's important is to point out why isn't a realistic aspiration, rather than just shouting "you're wrong you're wrong you're wrong".

I am not talking about separation in meatspace. Or at least, only in subtle ways. Attracting attention is just stupid.

You're always in meatspace - cyberspace is just another dimension to it. Unless you're Job from the lawnmower man.

True enough. What I mean is that I don't wear disguises, have multiple sets of IDs, hang out at anonymous exchange sites, and so on. But one can compartmentalize cyberspace substantially from the rest of meatspace, and then compartmentalize within cyberspace. Or at least, that's my experience. Maybe I'm just not interesting enough ;)

Well, that's the Internet, isn't it?

I mean this: https://anarplex.net/hosted/files/declarationseparation.html

Interesting. I think it boils down to a freeman argument though - you're basically issuing refutation of your implicit social contract. While the sentiment therein is laudable it is somewhat premature. Though one has a great deal of independence in the cyber realm one is can still run afoul of limitations of the real world and her laws (as demonstrated today in Brazil).

I think cyberspace currently is best categorized as a distinct estate rather than realm in a similar vein to the press and the judiciary. Each functions with more or less autonomy but can occasionally be subjugated to the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Estate

One can always be subjugated. By robbers. By terrorists. By ISPs. By governments. By whatever. So one does what one can to be left alone. And helps others following the path.

But in meatspace, one blends in, doesn't attract attention. As in Vinge's True Names. Ultimately, authoritarian states may wither. Or not. But in the meantime, one can manage, under occupation.

Yeah but you can't "declare independence"

I can act as if I were independent. And as long as I can manage that, I am independent. Until I'm not, or dead ;)

:)

If it was a small company based out of Iceland, or South Africa, or Singapore, it would still be in the same legal situation. The company (assuming just a single incorporation presence) is under the laws of the country it's from, and Joe Random user from across the internet is internationally accessing it.

National law cannot enforce anything on organizations not within the national jurisdiction, without international cooperation. However, they can (attempt to) stop their own citizens from accessing the international service.

That is false, at least in the example of online retail. If you sell stuff to someone in another country, online or not, you are bound by the consumer protection laws of that country. So someone in Scandinavia has two years of warranty on a laptop bought on dell.com, vs. one year for an American making the same purchase.

I don't think it makes a difference whether what you are offering is physical or not, your service is bound by the laws in whichever country the exchange takes place. Of course enforcement might be an issue, which is exactly why the Brazilian judge did what he did, when Whatsapp failed to abide by Brazilian law.

Note that I only said "enforce". A country can claim whatever they want within their own borders, but cannot really enforce them across the border.

Even with the laptop warranty case, if some small retailer from Country A shipped a laptop to Scandinavia, but didn't uphold a 2 year warranty, the Scandinavian governments would not be able to force the warranty to be upheld. They can make whatever local judgments they want, but none of them would touch Country A without international agreements in place.

completely agree.