#USA importers data | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

sunny-day-jack-official · 1 year ago

Text

URGENT! Stop KOSA!

Hey all, this is BáiYù and Sauce here with something that isn't necessarily SnaccPop related, but it's important nonetheless. For those of you who follow US politics, The Kids Online Safety Act passed the Senate yesterday and is moving forward.

This is bad news for everyone on the internet, even outside of the USA.

What is KOSA?

While it's officially known as "The Kids Online Safety Act," KOSA is an internet censorship masquerading as another "protect the children" bill, much in the same way SESTA/FOSTA claimed that it would stop illegal sex trafficking but instead hurt sex workers and their safety. KOSA was originally introduced by Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass. and Bill Cassidy, R-La. as a way to update the 1998 Children’s Online Privacy Act, raising the age of consent for data collection to 16 among other things. You can read the original press release of KOSA here, while you can read the full updated text of the bill on the official USA Congress website.

You can read the following articles about KOSA here:

EFF: The Kids Online Safety Act is Still A Huge Danger to Our Rights Online

CyberScoop: Children’s online safety bills clear Senate hurdle despite strong civil liberties pushback

TeenVogue: The Kids Online Safety Act Would Harm LGBTQ+ Youth, Restrict Access to Information and Community

The quick TL;DR:

KOSA authorizes an individual state attorneys general to decide what might harm minors

Websites will likely preemptively remove and ban content to avoid upsetting state attorneys generals (this will likely be topics such as abortion, queerness, feminism, sexual content, and others)

In order for a platform to know which users are minors, they'll require a more invasive age and personal data verification method

Parents will be granted more surveillance tools to see what their children are doing on the web

KOSA is supported by Christofascists and those seeking to harm the LGBTQ+ community

If a website holding personally identifying information and government documents is hacked, that's a major cybersecurity breach waiting to happen

What Does This Mean?

You don't have to look far to see or hear about the violence being done to the neurodivergent and LGBTQ+ communities worldwide, who are oftentimes one and the same. Social media sites censoring discussion of these topics would stand to do even further harm to folks who lack access to local resources to understand themselves and the hardships they face; in addition, the fact that websites would likely store personally identifying information and government documents means the death of any notion of privacy.

Sex workers and those living in certain countries already are at risk of losing their ways of life, living in a reality where their online activities are closely surveilled; if KOSA officially becomes law, this will become a reality for many more people and endanger those at the fringes of society even worse than it already is.

Why This Matters Outside of The USA

I previously mentioned SESTA/FOSTA, which passed and became US law in 2018. This bill enabled many of the anti-adult content attitudes that many popular websites are taking these days as well as the tightening of restrictions laid down by payment processors. Companies and sites hosted in the USA have to follow US laws even if they're accessible worldwide, meaning that folks overseas suffer as well.

What Can You Do?

If you're a US citizen, contact your Senators and tell them that you oppose KOSA. This can be as an email, letter, or phone call that you make to your state Senator.

For resources on how to do so, view the following links:

https://www.badinternetbills.com/#kosa

https://www.stopkosa.com/

https://linktr.ee/stopkosa

If you live outside of the US or cannot vote, the best thing you can do is sign the petition at the Stop KOSA website, alert your US friends about what's happening, and raise some noise.

Above all else, don’t panic. By staying informed by what’s going on, you can prepare for the legal battles ahead.

#stop KOSA #KOSA #censorship #us law #somethings wrong with sunny day jack #the groom of gallagher mansion #dachabo

2K notes · View notes

eximpedia1 · 10 months ago

Text

USA import export data

Explore comprehensive USA import export data effortlessly with Eximpedia. Our user-friendly platform provides real-time insights, helping businesses make informed decisions. Access detailed information on shipments, trade trends, and market analysis.

#USA import export data #USA importers data

0 notes

anamseair · 2 years ago

Link

#US Customs Data #USA Import Data #USA Importers Data

0 notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 1 day ago

Text

Every internet fight is a speech fight

THIS WEEKEND (November 8-10), I'll be in TUCSON, AZ: I'm the GUEST OF HONOR at the TUSCON SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION.

My latest Locus Magazine column is "Hard (Sovereignty) Cases Make Bad (Internet) Law," an attempt to cut through the knots we tie ourselves in when speech and national sovereignty collide online:

https://locusmag.com/2024/11/cory-doctorow-hard-sovereignty-cases-make-bad-internet-law/

This happens all the time. Indeed, the precipitating incident for my writing this column was someone commenting on the short-lived Brazilian court order blocking Twitter, opining that this was purely a matter of national sovereignty, with no speech dimension.

This is just profoundly wrong. Of course any rules about blocking a communications medium will have a free-speech dimension – how could it not? And of course any dispute relating to globe-spanning medium will have a national sovereignty dimension.

How could it not?

So if every internet fight is a speech fight and a sovereignty fight, which side should we root for? Here's my proposal: we should root for human rights.

In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed that the US government was illegally wiretapping the whole world. They were able to do this because the world is dominated by US-based tech giants and they shipped all their data stateside for processing. These tech giants secretly colluded with the NSA to help them effect this illegal surveillance (the "Prism" program) – and then the NSA stabbed them in the back by running another program ("Upstream") where they spied on the tech giants without their knowledge.

After the Snowden revelations, countries around the world enacted "data localization" rules that required any company doing business within their borders to keep their residents' data on domestic servers. Obviously, this has a human rights dimension: keeping your people's data out of the hands of US spy agencies is an important way to defend their privacy rights. which are crucial to their speech rights (you can't speak freely if you're being spied on).

So when the EU, a largely democratic bloc, enacted data localization rules, they were harnessing national soveriegnty in service to human rights.

But the EU isn't the only place that enacted data-localization rules. Russia did the same thing. Once again, there's a strong national sovereignty case for doing this. Even in the 2010s, the US and Russia were hostile toward one another, and that hostility has only ramped up since. Russia didn't want its data stored on NSA-accessible servers for the same reason the USA wouldn't want all its' people's data stored in GRU-accessible servers.

But Russia has a significantly poorer human rights record than either the EU or the USA (note that none of these are paragons of respect for human rights). Russia's data-localization policy was motivated by a combination of legitimate national sovereignty concerns and the illegitimate desire to conduct domestic surveillance in order to identify and harass, jail, torture and murder dissidents.

When you put it this way, it's obvious that national sovereignty is important, but not as important as human rights, and when they come into conflict, we should side with human rights over sovereignty.

Some more examples: Thailand's lesse majeste rules prohibit criticism of their corrupt monarchy. Foreigners who help Thai people circumvent blocks on reportage of royal corruption are violating Thailand's national sovereignty, but they're upholding human rights:

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/24/21075149/king-thailand-maha-vajiralongkorn-facebook-video-tattoos

Saudi law prohibits criticism of the royal family; when foreigners help Saudi women's rights activists evade these prohibitions, we violate Saudi sovereignty, but uphold human rights:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55467414

In other words, "sovereignty, yes; but human rights even moreso."

Which brings me back to the precipitating incidents for the Locus column: the arrest of billionaire Telegram owner Pavel Durov in France, and the blocking of billionaire Elon Musk's Twitter in Brazil.

How do we make sense of these? Let's start with Durov. We still don't know exactly why the French government arrested him (legal systems descended from the Napoleonic Code are weird). But the arrest was at least partially motivated by a demand that Telegram conform with a French law requiring businesses to have a domestic agent to receive and act on takedown demands.

Not every takedown demand is good. When a lawyer for the Sackler family demanded that I take down criticism of his mass-murdering clients, that was illegitimate. But there is such a thing as a legitimate takedown: leaked financial information, child sex abuse material, nonconsensual pornography, true threats, etc, are all legitimate targets for takedown orders. Of course, it's not that simple. Even if we broadly agree that this stuff shouldn't be online, we don't necessarily agree whether something fits into one of these categories.

This is true even in categories with the brightest lines, like child sex abuse material:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/09/facebook-reinstates-napalm-girl-photo

And the other categories are far blurrier, like doxing:

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/trump-camp-worked-with-musks-x-to

But just because not every takedown is a just one, it doesn't follow that every takedown is unjust. The idea that companies should have domestic agents in the countries where they operate isn't necessarily oppressive. If people who sell hamburgers from a street-corner have to register a designated contact with a regulator, why not someone who operates a telecoms network with 900m global users?

Of course, requirements to have a domestic contact can also be used as a prelude to human rights abuses. Countries that insist on a domestic rep are also implicitly demanding that the company place one of its employees or agents within reach of its police-force.

Just as data localization can be a way to improve human rights (by keeping data out of the hands of another country's lawless spy agencies) or to erode them (by keeping data within reach of your own country's lawless spy agencies), so can a requirement for a local agent be a way to preserve the rule of law (by establishing a conduit for legitimate takedowns) or a way to subvert it (by giving the government hostages they can use as leverage against companies who stick up for their users' rights).

In the case of Durov and Telegram, these issues are especially muddy. Telegram bills itself as an encrypted messaging app, but that's only sort of true. Telegram does not encrypt its group-chats, and even the encryption in its person-to-person messaging facility is hard to use and of dubious quality.

This is relevant because France – among many other governments – has waged a decades-long war against encrypted messaging, which is a wholly illegitimate goal. There is no way to make an encrypted messaging tool that works against bad guys (identity thieves, stalkers, corporate and foreign spies) but not against good guys (cops with legitimate warrants). Any effort to weaken end-to-end encrypted messaging creates broad, significant danger for every user of the affected service, all over the world. What's more, bans on end-to-end encrypted messaging tools can't stand on their own – they also have to include blocks of much of the useful internet, mandatory spyware on computers and mobile devices, and even more app-store-like control over which software you can install:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/05/theyre-still-trying-to-ban-cryptography/

So when the French state seizes Durov's person and demands that he establish the (pretty reasonable) minimum national presence needed to coordinate takedown requests, it can seem like this is a case where national sovereignty and human rights are broadly in accord.

But when you consider that Durov operates a (nominally) encrypted messaging tool that bears some resemblance to the kinds of messaging tools the French state has been trying to sabotage for decades, and continues to rail against, the human rights picture gets rather dim.

That is only slightly mitigated by the fact that Telegram's encryption is suspect, difficult to use, and not applied to the vast majority of the communications it serves. So where do we net out on this? In the Locus column, I sum things up this way:

Telegram should have a mechanism to comply with lawful takedown orders; and

those orders should respect human rights and the rule of law; and

Telegram should not backdoor its encryption, even if

the sovereign French state orders it to do so.

Sovereignty, sure, but human rights even moreso.

What about Musk? As with Durov in France, the Brazilian government demanded that Musk appoint a Brazilian representative to handle official takedown requests. Despite a recent bout of democratic backsliding under the previous regime, Brazil's current government is broadly favorable to human rights. There's no indication that Brazil would use an in-country representative as a hostage, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with requiring foreign firms doing business in your country to have domestic representatives.

Musk's response was typical: a lawless, arrogant attack on the judge who issued the blocking order, including thinly veiled incitements to violence.

The Brazilian state's response was multi-pronged. There was a national blocking order, and a threat to penalize Brazilians who used VPNs to circumvent the block. Both measures have obvious human rights implications. For one thing, the vast majority of Brazilians who use Twitter are engaged in the legitimate exercise of speech, and they were collateral damage in the dispute between Musk and Brazil.

More serious is the prohibition on VPNs, which represents a broad attack on privacy-enhancing technology with implications far beyond the Twitter matter. Worse still, a VPN ban can only be enforced with extremely invasive network surveillance and blocking orders to app stores and ISPs to restrict access to VPN tools. This is wholly disproportionate and illegitimate.

But that wasn't the only tactic the Brazilian state used. Brazilian corporate law is markedly different from US law, with fewer protections for limited liability for business owners. The Brazilian state claimed the right to fine Musk's other companies for Twitter's failure to comply with orders to nominate a domestic representative. Faced with fines against Spacex and Tesla, Musk caved.

In other words, Brazil had a legitimate national sovereignty interest in ordering Twitter to nominate a domestic agent, and they used a mix of somewhat illegitimate tactics (blocking orders), extremely illegitimate tactics (threats against VPN users) and totally legitimate tactics (fining Musk's other companies) to achieve these goals.

As I put it in the column:

Twitter should have a mechanism to comply with lawful takedown orders; and

those orders should respect human rights and the rule of law; and

banning Twitter is bad for the free speech rights of Twitter users in Brazil; and

banning VPNs is bad for all Brazilian internet users; and

it’s hard to see how a Twitter ban will be effective without bans on VPNs.

There's no such thing as an internet policy fight that isn't about national sovereignty and speech, and when the two collide, we should side with human rights over sovereignty. Sovereignty isn't a good unto itself – it's only a good to the extent that is used to promote human rights.

In other words: "Sovereignty, sure, but human rights even moreso."

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/06/brazilian-blowout/#sovereignty-sure-but-human-rights-even-moreso

Image: © Tomas Castelazo, www.tomascastelazo.com (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Border_Wall_at_Tijuana_and_San_Diego_Border.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

101 notes · View notes

effervescentdragon · 4 months ago

Text

I want to talk about the ICJ ruling of July 19th on Palestine and Israel.

I've been mulling this over in my head for days now and I finally have the time to sit down, do research and write it all down. I don't think a lot of people understand what it actually means. Most of the reactions I've seen focus on the wrong thing, which is how it affects the USA, instead of the more, maybe the most important one, which is how it affects Europe and the EU. I will explain what I mean, hopefully comprehensively, ahead.

First of all, the online and offline worlds both are incredibly, annoyingly saturated with USAmerican perspective. We all fall prey to the trap of looking at things through the USAmerican perspective, which is both understandable and wrong. No matter how much it tries to present itself so, USA is not the only country in the world, and although its existence is sadly important through the virtue of "it does not allow itself to be ignored no matter how much we all wish we could", in this case, the US is irrelevant. It is irrellevant because the ICJ decision was not made to put pressure on the US. That is not possible, as the US is notorious for not obeying, respecting, or indeed even acknowledging any of the International Law, or IL treaties. In this post of mine I have compiled only some of the international law agreemebts and treaties that the US has either not signed, or signed and not ratified, which makes it so they're not bound to abide by them. I only want to emphasise one - the American Declaration of Human Rights. It predates even the UDHR, and the USA has never ratified it, which means it does not have to obey it. If the USAmericans have not yet realised that their human rights are non-existent, just look at your data privacy laws, or lack thereof (this post starts in nicely on it). What I am trying to say with all of this is that nobody actually expected the US to obey the ICJ decision. For all of USAmerican boasting about being democratic and the paragon of justice, if you go through actual transcripts and notes from UN General Assembly sessions and International Bodies' rulings and debates, you will more often than not see the US as an (consciencious) objector to many motions that aim(ed) to make life better for humans on Earth, be these climate change policies or human rights policies or war policies. USA serves only its own imperial, megalomaniacal interests and its blatant disrespect and disregard of International Law only brings this fact into light. This ruling was never about the USA and with this, I will stop talking about it because the USA is irrelevant for what I actually want to say. (Also I'm sick of it. Of having to write a full paragraph about the US even when it's not about the US.)

Let us get to the actual point.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a body of the UN that is responsible for adjudicating international disputes and giving advisory opinion on international legal issues. I will not recount the history of establishing the UN and these bodies of International Law and Practice, but suffice to say it replaced the Permanent Court of Justice after WW2, much like the UN replaced the League of Nations. It is also the only body of the UN not located in New York, instead it is located in The Hague in the Netherlands. The most important thing is that all states members of the UN are party to the ICJ statute, established by the UN Charter. In the matter of rulings, ICJ, much like the rest of the international law instruments, has jurisdiction on the basis of consent, be it explicit or tacit, which means that the States which bring their cases to the ICJ therfore agree that the ICJ has jurisdiction, and accept to be subjected to the ICJ's ruling. In the matter of giving advisory opinion (that can be requested either by the General Assembly or the Security Council, or if it's abother organ, by GA's authorisation), these opinions are consultative and non-binding in character. However, they carry a great weight and authority, and are also not without legal basis. The ICJ's views on the issues of international law are reflected in the legal reasoning, as the court follows the same procedures that the state laws that IL relies on demand.

On December 30th 2023, the UN General Assembly submitted a request for an advisory opinion of the ICJ on the practices and policies of Israel in the occupied Palestinian teritory. This is the full request, and here is the core of the request:

GA was asking ICJ to advise on alleged breaches of multiple counts of human rights laws that Israel was commiting on the people and the land of occupied Palestine, and to determine if Israel's occupation of Palestine is true, and therefore in breach of international law. This is important for multiple reasons, but especially because in a court case that we all know of, South Africa vs. Israel, South Africa accused Israel of commiting genocide, therefore going against the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Israel's defense in this case (not the only one, but the currently relevant one) was the claim that "Israel has the right to defend itself".

Advisory opinion on the ICJ on Israel's practices in occupied Palestine of July 19th 2024 (here is it in full) comes down to a couple of rulings:

- Israel is an apartheid state (illegal);

- Israel's occupation of Gaza is illegal;

- Israel's annexation of the West Bank is illegal;

- Israel continuously and consistently violates Plaestinian right to self-determination (illegal);

- Israel's settlements in Palestine are illegal;

- Israel's exploitation and theft of Palestine's resources is illegal;

- Israel's forced displacement of Palestinians is illegal.

This means many things, amongst others the fact that ICJ ordered cessation of the Israel colonial project and further settlements, evacuation of illegal settlers, return of land and property and assets to the Palestinians, and reparations to be paid by Israel. But what is extremely important is that the fact that Israel, being and conducting an illegal occupation in Palestine, does not have the right to defend itself. What id incredibly important is that Palestine has the right to self-determination, which means claims of "Palestine does not exist" are false. Palestine exists, and has a right to self-determination.

Now, you might wonder why I went into this without yet stating my point. Here is my point.

International law is tricky. It works on the basis of "good faith" and relying on the agreement of its subjects to obey it. All the UN countries are subject to ICJ rulings. All the UN countries are subject to a million and one treaties and rulings and declarations of the UN they have signed and ratified and pledged thenselves to obey. The ICJ advisory opinion on the legal implications of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine was made with these facts in mind.

The paragraph I highlighted above means that every single EU/European country that exports arms to Israel is now potentially in breach of the rulling of the highest body of international law that they are bound to obey. The General Assembly is advised and tasked by ICJ to take measures to ensure that Israel's occupation stops. The way of doung this is through sanctions, and that also means that the States currently aiding and abetting Israel's occupation are bound by international law agreements to stop. These countries know this, know that there is no way out now, that they will have to obey sooner or later. This is who the ruling is important for.

Another body of international law is the ICC. International Criminal Court, set in Hague, the first and only criminal court with the jurisdiction to trial individuals for international crimes such as war crimes, agression crimes, human rights crimes and genocide crimes. That ICC is preparing to issue criminal warrants against Netenyahu, Israeli, and Hamas leaders. It is preparing to issues criminal arrest warants to war criminals, and a part of it is influenced by the ICJ ruling. Of course, the countries such as Germany, a cesspit of Nazi capitalists who cannot stand a genocide being commited withiut its involvement is already trying to obstruct this process and by themselves more time to accumulate capital by funding an illegal occupation. Austrian right-wing party tried to do the same, but was blocked by the Greens. Other countries might try to do the same, but the fact is - they will fail. The ICJ advisory opinion made sure of that.

What do you mean, you might be asking yourself. I mean that the whole of international community now has a confirmation from the highest body of international law that holds jurisdiction over them that Israel's occupation is illegal. I mean that it is only a matter of time before the ongoing court case of South Africa about the genocide becomes codified and the ruling reflects the reality of the crimes against humanity we have been witnessing for the past 10 months. I mean that I grew up watching the Hague Tribunal proceedings of ICC in the case of Yugoslavian War Crimes, and that I know that it is only a matter of time before my mornings are once again filled with the proceedings against Netenyahu and other war criminals. I mean that I know and understand how a fight for humanity and dignity must be fought on all sides - by Yemeni military actions and by BDS boycottd and by holding your politicians accountable and by protesting and donating, but it is also being fought in the courts of international law. It is fought in a way that signals to the "west" that the very structures put by these States in place after WW2 to prevent atrocities does not mean that these States are exempt from them. This ICJ ruling is monumental for Europe especially, because no matter how many issues I personally and we all have with the UN bodies, they still mean something. Their opinions and rulings still carry a weight, a weight we have all felt, and their proclamations make it so people and structures and governing bodies who have pledged themselves to be under their jurisdiction cannot pretend they don't know what's happening. Cannot pretend they don't know what they are funding and supporting and making themselves rich on. Europe cannot claim ignorance anymore, and ICJ made sure of that.

What can I say as my final words? I wrote this post because I don't think that a lot of people understand, or understood, what this means. I wrote it because I've been walking in a daze since the ruling, and the hope in my heart scares me as much as it invigorates me. I wrote it because I am certain, now more than ever, that Palestine will be free. I hope you are, too.

#anyways i tried to keep this as clear and as concise as possible. international law is tricky #icj ruling #palestine #israel #united nations #international criminal court #international court of justice #from the river to the sea palestine will be free #us politics too i guess. ugh #icc #european politics

138 notes · View notes