“Sorry government, I can’t enforce your sanctions, my ToS don’t allow me”
Do you really think this works?
Comment on Welcome to the new world of risk: Microsoft cuts off services to energy company without notice
Bjonay@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoEnforcing sanctions is not Microsoft’s purview though. Unless their TOS specifically cover rhis scenario, which I doubt.
The article implies Microsoft is prepared to admit breach of contract terms, rather than risk EU distrust (or further distrust, after the Khan/ICC debacle).
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Bjonay@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s the way it should work. A private company can only be compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. Ensures trust through transparency.
If both US and EU foreign policy can dictate who suddenly gets cut off from Microsoft services, trust in those services will erode.
After denying Outlook access to Khan due to (non-judicial) US sanctions against the ICC, multiple European public and private orgs are implementing exit strategies from Microsoft and all providers with a US presence.
The reason leveraging Microsoft as a foreign policy weapon works is because they dominate the market, and Eorope have grown complacent since end of WW2. All thta seems to now be changing.
FooBarrington@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
It’s the way it should work. A private company can only be compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. Ensures trust through transparency.
They are compelled to enforce a government demand under due process of the applicable jurisdiction. For a multinational corporation, the applicable jurisdiction are all the jurisdictions they operate in. Since multinational corporations exist to funnel profits into their host country, that country has the ability to compel them under due process in other countries.
You might argue that it’s not good for companies to be this large, and I’d agree. You might also argue that specific sanctions aren’t good, and I’d agree. But the idea that a companies ToS should supercede jurisdictions and that they shouldn’t be curtailed by the governments under which they operate is fundamentally corrosive to the concept of statehood.
Sanctions exist to restrict trade with other countries. This can’t work if companies can just ignore sanctions, and I don’t want e.g. european companies to ignore sanctions against Russia.
Bjonay@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
There’s nothing to indicate that Microsoft was legally obligated to suspend their service in this case, is my point.
They’re not legally obligated to deny their services to customers who have legal disputes totally unrelated to their contract with Microsoft.
It’s like getting the power company to cut your electricity because you have unpaid parking tickets - It’s probabkly a great way to get parking offenders to pay what they owe, but it undermines trust in general, yes?
HertzDentalBar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
Which hits them harder it’s always just about the money. They won’t stop supporting genocide in other countries so fuck the capitalist pigs.
HelloHotel@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Enforcing sanctions is not Microsoft’s purview though.
that should be true, but for some reason, these companies are hiding their glee behind governments as they go above and beyond what the sanctions require.
onslaught545@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
It is if they want to operate in the country imposing the sanctions.
Empricorn@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
*27 countries