New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
BuyVM and Freedom of Speech
So I've heard only good things about BuyVM, and they've been around for a while, which instills confidence. I already bought a server from them, and everything's been running smoothly. My only question is, should the fact that Frantech is a Canadian company be reason for concern about the future of BuyVM's free speech/DMCA (in Luxembourg) policies, given Canada's political trajectory and increasingly draconian attitude toward freedom of speech and assembly (think back to 2021-2022)?
Comments
Can you share how Canada violates freedom of speech principles?
Speech is still free, but only if you speak in Quebecois.
Speech is still free, but only if it's in both English and French.
La parole est toujours libre, mais seulement si elle est en anglais et en français.
I think freezing the bank accounts of protestors without court order constitutes a violation of freedom of speech. And I don't even agree with the premises on which they were protesting.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-banks-ottawa-protests-1.6353968
We can debate whether these protests constituted unlawful assembly, but if we do go that route, then there is a massive, and likely politically motivated double standard between how the Canadian government handled the truckers vs. left wing mobs and rioters, such as those mobilized over Israel and Palestine. Showing resolute strength when rightists intimidate civilians vs. cowardice and capitulation when leftists intimidate citizens. Sure, they cleared out the encampments eventually, but the amount of time and the sheer amount bureaucratic backlog that it took to get to that point speaks volumes.
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canadian-court-grants-injunction-for-police-to-clear-pro-palestinian-campus-encampment/ar-BB1piuoa
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/pride-parade-cancelled-mid-route-after-pro-palestinian-demonstration-on-yonge/ar-BB1pa5g
And why doesn't the government freeze the bank accounts of those charged for actual violence?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/3-charged-demonstration-thornhill-real-estate-event-1.7138666
Curious how the police can be sent to intimidate protestors on their own volition, but police presence to protect synagogues and jewish schools after a shooting has to be explicitly requested.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-jewish-school-gunfire-1.7026640
Would a conservative (as in the party) government alleviate my worries? Maybe, but my confidence in a company's service shouldn't rest on who's in power.
idk about DMCA but suing someone in another country for speech that was conducted inside the US and that is expressly protected by the First Amendment in the US allows you to sue them back in US courts for any cost the foreign court awards + penalties + distress damages + attorney fees.
This is the kind of answer I was looking for. And I assume that stuff hosted on, and served from a US DC is considered "speech that was conducted inside the US"?
First rule of buyvm which everyone knows, for dmca stuff, use lux location.
I am not a legal expert I just know US courts can't enforce judgments that would violate free speech and must block foreign orders that do. If the bank or whatever complies before you can get a US court to block it you can force the US bank to return the funds and usually can receive some funds for legal expenses from the foreign party(although the later part may not be enforceable in their home jurisdiction).
Its called the SPEECH ACT or something. Rarely used in US court bc it was passed under Obama so it is a fairly new law.
I've been feeling better about all of this, but I figure I should also ask @Francisco for his input directly. Here goes.
I doubt you'll get much. @Francisco isn't a lawyer after all and therefore probably not that keen on giving what could be construed to be legal advice.
Personally i wouldn't really put to much on the legislation cited above. That might protect you on paper but it's probably most useful if you are actually an US citizen. I mean think about it, if the situation looks like this: You (foreign citizen) are getting successfully sued outside of the US (likely your country of residence) what do you gain from being able to counter sue in the US (likely not that easy for a foreign citizen, will likely be anything but free even if you could claim your expenses back and has a high chance not even being enforceable therefore rendering any investment made in this regard lost money). It's really not making the whole situation much more favorable. Especially since even if you win and are able to enforce it, it still won't nullify the foreign judgement against you.
What you really want is not getting to the point of being sued at all, so the your main concern should be under which circumstances the host is going to share your personal data with whom. Sure, it'll probably need to disclose your information (by whatever the local equivalent to a subpoena is or whatever) if you are being sued in the country they are operating in (or in general some place that has jurisdiction on them) but as long as you stay within the limits of the local laws that would pretty much need a frivolous lawsuit just to get at your data and before that there simply won't be any foreign suits brought against you as potential litigators won't have a clue who to sue. All of that obviously assumes that the host doesn't voluntarily falter at some point once pressure is applied and you don't hand anyone your data on a silver platter.
We take a simple 'law of the land' approach.
The RCMP generally doesn't say much unless it's hosted within their borders (or it appears to). The only time i've ever really talked to them was when there was *chan boards being sloppy with their moderation. LUX is the same, they mostly just care about what's within their borders. Sometimes we'll get alerts for stuff outside of it (sometimes it's actually speech related), but we inform them that the content isn't hosted within LUX, and thank them for the heads up.
If you post a bunch of car horn noises you'll likely give Trudeau nightmares, that's about it.
Francisco
All is well, it seems. Thanks for the info.
you get what you pay. If you pay like a few $ monthly, do you really think BuyVM or anyone else will risk legal issues for themselves for you?
think again
such services costs $1000s per month.
I can list multiple hosts out of my head that would do that, for a pretty low price. They're just based like that.
Which bit of "law of the land" confuses you? It's just that they actually understand what laws apply and aren't shy in turning down non-compliant demands.
There's no "legal risk" in that.
BuyVM themself will host anything that is allowed by the laws of the country the servers are located in and have very decent hardware for the price you pay. However, they use Path for DDoS protection, so if you plan on getting a DDoS-protected IP, you might want to make sure that whatever content you're hosting doesn't upset Path or any of their employees.
Path has blackholed people for hosting content that they don't like in the past, one notable example of this is Kiwi Farms. They had a thread about their former COO which resulted in Path blackholing their IP's and sending dodgy court orders to their data center demanding that their hard drives be seized. If you're hosting something that won't attract attention from upstream ISP's or if you get protection from elsewhere, you should be fine.
yea, right. So if someone brings a legal lawsuit against BuyVM they will pay tons on money on lawyers to keep hosting $5/VM
Or if, lets say foreign police request data they will tell them to fuck off because its out of “their land”… and risk criminal charges or potential arrests once they enter the friendly county of county which police they ignored…
Someone must be a complete retard to believe that.
If that "foreign police data request" has no legal weight, I'm not clear why I'm going to get arrested by rejecting it as not lawful. And putting aside paranoia, generally even "foreign police" are capable of understanding what they can and can't ask for.
If you follow "law of the land", there is no legal risk. That is... kind of the definition of the term.
I take it from the ad hominem that you've run out of actual arguments?
yes, same like Domtcom followed "law of the land".
furthermore, no country allows copyright infringement, not even shitholes like Albania.
A lot of those countries do not enforce those laws in practice, though.
Non-american companies do not have to comply with the DMCA (which is an US law) and American companies do not have to comply with EU copyright laws, either.
Your country's laws only apply inside your own borders, you can't enforce them on the territory of other countries.
Challenge accepted.
Not arguing either way, but its also important to consider that in some cases the business isn't paying tons of money just for that particular VM/customer, but instead to maintain their reputation and avoid losing other/future customers.
Bahnhof would.
Not that cheap though.
Well, i'm actually also a bit skeptical in regards to that law of the land thing as i guess that it's not 100% unthinkable that someone goes after the host if what it's hosting abroad is violating some local law of it's place of residence.
First of at least where i am the police has no power the to request much of anything in a legally binding manner. Sure they can invite you and they often make it sound like they were in a position to demand you to comply but in reality it's nothing but an invitation and if you are a polite person you'll inform them that you have no intention of showing up to their supposed meeting. You could of course also let wait pointlessly but then that's not really nice, isn't it?
It's obviously a bit different with court orders and courts assuming competency over foreign parties in internet cases is nothing unheard of but then it takes quite a bit to actually be charged in some way as long as you aren't the actual defendant. Also many people don't travel a whole lot and if your reputation (it's not really about the $5 but about this) makes you good money not visiting place X might still very well be worth it or not even a noticeable drawback. For example personally i'll probably never visit the US, so not being able to do that anymore without getting into trouble wouldn't concern me the slightest.
It really depends on the actual situation. There's a huge difference between some rather petty shit like free speech or exploiting some minor law difference and for example hosting a carding board. The first two really aren't that big of a deal (in regards to potential repercussions) while the latter is a totally different beast and will likely need said good chunk of money.
While that's true, it isn't that easy. Courts sometimes assume competency for rather debatable reasons. For example German courts like to assume competency because in their view some site targets German citizens 100% regardless of where it's hosted or who's running it and while a judgement might not be enforceable per se (ie the convicted party is outside of Germany/the EU) there is a good chance that if that person ever sets foot on German (or even EU) territory they'll get a warm welcome at the border including a firm request to please follow the officers and likely won't be leaving anymore before fines are payed or a potential prison sentence is completed.
Well, no country is wrong. There actually is handful that aren't part of some sort of international treaty (actually any kind of usable hosting there... good luck). Following copyright doesn't dictate enforcement procedures though, so an email from someone claiming to be the rightful copyright holder (or authorized to act on its behalf) might very well not be enough to force a host to do fuck all but if such countries exist inside the EU is quite debatable at the very least. Also there is the whole unreliability thing that comes with email and legally it's usually required for the addressed party to actually take notice, which is a nightmare to prove for email.