If I were Gabbard, I would go further and be more concerned that a UK company forced a US company to downgrade its privacy to suit its politics on privacy, which clearly confict with US ideals of privacy and free speech.
That's nonsensical. Every company has to abide by the laws in the country it is doing business in. It is a costly and complex issue that all international companies need to engage in. To not do so is to not do business.
UK requested access to any and all persons worldwide not just people under UK jurisdiction either by citizenship or physical location.
Why would France, Germany, or any other country should allow their citizens in their sovereign country to be treated like that? And what’s next? “If you want to do business in country X then give us all the user data for country Y?
I don't really see the problem with this specific bit? You want big international companies to follow the local laws of the countries they operate in, or to move out if that doesn't work for them, that's a good thing.
For the most part, yes it does. And really, it's only fair that it does, even if I think laws like these in the UK are complete garbage.
But sure, countries can sign trade treaties that give each other mutually-beneficial things. Some of those things could be what is and isn't allowed to require companies to do in order to operate within the other country's borders.
But in absence of something like that... that's just life. I guess the US could act like a baby and slap tariffs on goods from the UK, but I'm not sure what the upside would be for the US here.
The US government allowing a US company to operate in the US market, while the company enables a foreign country to access all US citizen's data. That's where the government is supposed to step in.
No, that is not the intention. If that were the case US diplomats would have intervened before now. Or maybe they were engaged in writing up what they did last week.
