This is too blatant of a hit piece from NYtimes, low quality and ... wtf is it doing in HN frontpage (top spot, no less)? I would urge people to upvote quality, not their personal outrages.
Repeating "cambridge analytica scandal" will not make it less of a scandal than "obama campaing scandal". And FB already has all the data they need for their dating offering, if anything, they are withholding people from risking exposing these data to other services. What nonsense.
Ah yes, the classic "Facebook already knows everything about you so why not just use them for every facet of your life to prevent other companies from doing what Facebook does with your data" defense.
1- It's an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are never expected to uphold the same levels of journalistic standard as reporting. It's understood to literally just be, one guys opinion. Some are good. Some are bad. Take with a grain of salt, call me in the morning.
2- Explain to me why Facebook deserves to be trusted and this guy is making mountains out of molehills? Do you genuinely believe FB is a misunderstood good actor here, or are you just annoyed about something else? (the NYT, "anti-tech" journalism in general, the rise of anti-corporation sentiments over the last 10 years?)
> How long until Somali pirates show up, murder you, and take all your possessions with no 'government' to protect you?
I assume most somali pirates do operate in international waters, which are not officially protected by anyone.
wiki:
> Piracy off the coast of Somalia refers to criminal violence and threats by Somalian pirates in the Gulf of Aden, Guardafui Channel and Somali Sea, in what some say are disputed territorial waters.
Thailand's government is a dictatorship. They are BSing, the seastead was beyond their territorial 12 miles, in the contiguous zone in which they have limited power. The exclusive economic zone is not territorial waters either. They have charged the couple with ridiculous "violation of sovereignty" at a place where they dont have sovereignity.
> within region of the sea where Thai government has the final say.
They are beyond 12 miles, this region is not territorial waters but international. They don't have the final say, except in matters relevant to their customs, commerce and artificial islands. If this was in a sea shared by two nations, i m sure the situation would be a lot more complicated.
Also, this was more a statement rather than a realistic seastead. The cost of the tiny seastead is ~$150000. Hopefully more will follow which will lead to a larger discussion about governmental overreaches.
State has jurisdiction does not drop to zero at 12 mile range.
States can enforce laws in four areas: customs, taxation, immigration and pollution within 24 nautical miles (contiguous zone). That's anothe 12 nautical miles after territorial waters.
If it was a statement, they should be embracing their opportunity to fight it in court and prove their point. Hiding from the opportunity to argue their case is not a statement.
To be fair, whilst I doubt their interpretation of international law is sound, I also don't think their unwillingness to be tried for capital offences against the Thai government by a Thai court says much either way of the value of their statement.
> It’s something that’s granted by others. Sometimes it’s through agreement. Other times it’s by fear of force.
Thailand has signed the UN law of the sea and set its territorial claim at 12 miles, so it knows that its territory ends at 12 miles. They are disrespecting their contract by performing hostile operations in international waters. If anything, the other signatories to UNCLOS should complain.
> The Contiguous Zone is an intermediary zone between the territorial sea and the high seas extending enforcement jurisdiction of the coastal state to a maximum of 24 nautical miles from baselines for the purposes of preventing or punishing violations of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary (and thus residual national security) legislation.
@yongjik: china (the country) has no legal basis to extend its sovereignity there. But i guess it can send a ship and station it there , and the us could not lawfully capture it unless certain conditions were met. The US is not a signatory to UNCLOS so this is hypothetical. I am also sure the US and russia are frequent visitors of each other from international waters near Alaska.
This interpretation of international laws doesn't pass sniff test, and frankly on the same level as sovereign citizen movement. If China builds a floating house 14 miles from San Francisco and declares it as Chinese territory, do you think the US will respect that?
If US claimed only 12 miles off the coast, then under what interpretation of any law would they just come and take it and charge the occupants with treason? And we are not talking about declaring any Chinese territory, don't put up a strawman.
I really think you should read up on the history of the Republic of Minerva. Essentially, Tonga got the other South Pacific countries together, told them what they’re going to do, and then did it. You can do this when you’re a recognized sovereign country. No one cares about outlaws.
If you go down that road, why offer our content for free to google to index? Maps and other google services help the web grow, which helps them sell more ads. It 's a synergy until it is no longer one. I suppose they will not be dumb enough to monetize recaptcha next.
Repeating "cambridge analytica scandal" will not make it less of a scandal than "obama campaing scandal". And FB already has all the data they need for their dating offering, if anything, they are withholding people from risking exposing these data to other services. What nonsense.