| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 76641 | 2007-02-08 00:03:00 | Should Microsoft Obey NZ Law or Amercian Law. | KiwiTT_NZ (233) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 523619 | 2007-02-08 00:03:00 | Read this Story (www.stuff.co.nz) and you decide. | KiwiTT_NZ (233) | ||
| 523620 | 2007-02-08 00:22:00 | MS Should obey by what every law that country they company is in, e.g. NZ Law etc... imo I would have thought that would make sense. |
stu161204 (123) | ||
| 523621 | 2007-02-08 00:25:00 | "Detective Sergeant Martin Todd said Microsoft was acting within its rights and had no legal obligation to help. "Microsoft haven't been obstructive in any way," Mr Todd said." So just how long would it have taken the Police to get a Court order rather than cut corners? |
PaulD (232) | ||
| 523622 | 2007-02-08 00:27:00 | From the story. The Privacy Act compels private and public organisations to divulge information to allow the law to be upheld. But Microsoft insisted that as an American company it was not bound by New Zealand laws and could not pass on confidential customer information. |
KiwiTT_NZ (233) | ||
| 523623 | 2007-02-08 01:19:00 | Should Microsoft reveal details of Chinese customers posting pro-democratic material using its online blogging service to the chinese government, so they can be tortured, jailed and executed? Should Yahoo and Google do the same? Should they reveal details of anti-Labour party bloggers to the NZ government? If so, why? If the man who stole the XBox360 had phoned Microsoft's international call centre, then that's a different story to if he'd spoken to Microsoft's NZ office. If it is the former, then he has communicated with an overseas company, and they have every right not to reveal information. If he spoke to their NZ office however, then as a subsidary operating in NZ, with NZ staff, and they would be directly bound (as individuals) to comply with the Privacy Act. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 523624 | 2007-02-08 01:48:00 | Well said somebody | KiwiTT_NZ (233) | ||
| 523625 | 2007-02-08 01:59:00 | What a stupid question | JJJJJ (528) | ||
| 523626 | 2007-02-08 02:00:00 | It's obvious that MS should comply to NZ law. I think the unsaid question that the various news articles ask, should the New Zealand police also obey NZ law, or are they allowed to overstep their authority? In my opinion they're too much of an authority unto themselves and need taming. Get the bloody police hoodlums restrained! :mad: |
Greg (193) | ||
| 523627 | 2007-02-08 02:10:00 | The goods where purchased in New Zealand and therefore anything related to that purchase comes under NZ law. These days you can call a local number and the call centre can be anywhere in the world. If however the goods where purchased in Australia, then its a different manner. When you do business in NZ you are bound by certain laws. How many of you would like companies to hide behind the privacy act where there is a crime involved. China is much more complicated than this one. I wonder if our Google is censored :rolleyes: |
dolby digital (5073) | ||
| 523628 | 2007-02-08 02:13:00 | Can't say I agree entirely Somebody . The man called from NZ, presumably the business (if it were legitimate) originated in NZ . Most people are unaware prior to a service call that it will be re-routed to an arbitrary overseas call centre . i . e . As per the origin of business above, they are using and doing business in NZ . So, are you suggesting that all service calls be governed by the law where the call centre happens to be; India, Thailand, NZ, Aus, USA to name a few . (what a great scam to avoid the law, make an overseas call even if a local one is available . ) There will always be anomalous situations when you apply law in broad brush across boundaries . The Chinese dissident situation is covered by international treaties, as is the flow of law enforcement information . The problem is, google, et al, supplied information when no recognised laws had been breached . What I'm trying to say is, if you take account of dictators and pernicious regimes, then you're going to harm or hinder the vast majority when they have a legitimate complaint or request (as in this case) . Common sense says that MS should have respected this, obviously legitimate, request and coughed up . Why they didn't only they know, but to use the weasel words quoted in the article is a very poor look IMO . From this angle, it looks like MS is very happy to acquire as much information as they can get their mitts on, but not take on the responsibility of retaining that information . On the one hand they claim to be respecting users information while not thumbing their noses at users who have purchased their products and have a right to the recovery of their property if at all possible . |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||