XMPP Service Operators - 2020-11-04

> Ge0rG wrote: > just don't go out after election day. The lead concentration in the air might be too high. Don't worry; New Zealand's a long way away from that risk, though I understand our government issued a travel advisory for our citizens who are in the US at the moment...

And thanks for the interesting links, Ge0rG. Just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding you and jonas’: Your argument seems to be that privacy is a fundamental human right, and that therefore every XMPP server ought to comply with every jurisdiction's privacy laws; Thailand's lèse-majesté law doesn't protect a fundamental human right, so this principle doesn't apply to that law. Is that an accurate summary of your position?

(Let me know if you're not interested in discussing this further, or would prefer to do so elsewhere.)

I've found this important and interesting.

Test

Test failed ;)

Ge0rG: my question is how can xmpp push uber app?

And xmpp can connect private to apn settings?

rezza26: say that again

Im newbie :)

Right, we all are somehow, continue...

> Ge0rG Wrote: > you are also seeing US companies trying to enforce the DMCA and other useless monopoly laws all over the world. they are enforcing it in the US, not all over the wolld

Ellenor Malik: well, as the most important search and hosting providers are US-based, it affects the world. And international treaties ensure that other countries implement the same regime.

TMakarios, sorry, busy with work Yes, kind of like that. Ethically anyway. You can probably get away with only complying with these countries with a large userbase.

(which is probably one of the motivations behind the GDPR, to make it more enforceable by having more users affected by it)

TMakarios: I think you don't need to comply with *every* jurisdiction, but only with the superset of your jurisdiction and the one of the respective user.

jonas’, Ge0rG: So do you know which judisdictions your users are in? And are you doing anything to ensure that your public MUCs don't violate name suppression orders made by courts in New Zealand, New South Wales, Scotland, or Saskatchewan, for example?

TMakarios: I can't imagine that those would be enforced beyond the point of disproportionate hardship.

Ellenor Malik: But jonas’ is saying it's an ethical requirement, even if it won't be enforced, and Ge0rG might be agreeing.

Legally, I don't think New Zealand law even contemplates that such orders will or should be enforcable against people and companies with no presence here, which is part of why I think it's so remarkable that the EU seems to think some of its laws constrain the behaviour of people with no presence in Europe, in the absence of any treaties to justify the claim.