this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2024
375 points (97.2% liked)

Technology

59958 readers
3831 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Oh now it's malware? Funny, I haven't seen it on any warning lists. Google hasn't thrown it's shield up and made me click the naughty button. Is there any reputable source saying it's malware? Or are you just hoping I wasn't tech literate?

International trade is literal trade, not just any foreigner offering a service. Foreign companies operating inside the US have the same rights you or I or Hobby Lobby have. Anything less runs into the same problems with restricting the Rights of non citizen individuals, namely that citizens inevitably lose those rights too. As long as they're here they have the same rights.

[–] conciselyverbose 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, they've been caught abusing multiple exploits.

Foreign trade is literally anything involving any person from any country that's not the US, any corporation that isn't based in the US, and anything involving any US citizen crossing the borders of the US and bringing anything back. The government has unconditional and unlimited authority to regulate and restrict all of it for any reason. There are absolutely zero limitations. The government can completely bar any foreign ownership of any US asset and any corporation that isn't registered exclusively in the US from doing any business at all with anyone within the borders of the US. It cannot possibly be a Constitutional issue.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Oh? And there are reports of this, right? By cyber security professionals? Reports you could link to?

And no. Your definition would turn the New Jersey tourist industry into a Foreign Trade. If that authorization is already in law then surely you could point it out so our esteemed politicians could just use that?

I'll save you the trouble. It isn't there. You're making this up as you go along because you like the way that sounds. But we've spent 70 years building an international trade with treaties and international courts. Even if this, somehow, isn't a beach of the 1st Amendment, 5th Amendment, and the prohibition on Bills of Attainder we still have to abide by the treaties we've signed. Treaties our Constitution affords the same level of respect as itself.

See, that's all easily findable. There's no circular logic about having the authority so you can pass a law giving yourself the authority. It's how laws are supposed to work.

[–] conciselyverbose 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes, it's been reported numerous times.

Yes, Congress could pass laws banning tourism by foreign nationals if they wished. The constitution is explicit that they can do literally anything they want to regulate trade with other countries, and they absolute do regularly ban and sanction foreign bad actors. It has nothing to do with laws that exist. There are numerous such sanctions already in place against China and Chinese actors, and it's an inherent right of being a sovereign nation.

You have absolutely no rights to interact or do business with foreign actors. It cannot possibly violate your rights to be prohibited from interacting with China. Every single country on the planet breaks treaties when things change to the extent doing so is required, which is irrelevant, because China routinely bans US companies for the sole purpose of protecting their own state controlled entities.

There is nothing for the Supreme Court to rule on. There is nothing remotely ambiguous here and nothing that in any way resembles a new precedent. This is entirely standard behavior.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

Then where's the report?

You've sat here for three comments now, without referencing the Constitution, or the report just declaring your narrative as truth.