Originally Posted by
HDQDD
Better luck trying to prove them. I guess this is your admission that you have no source. It really didn't have to be that difficult.
On the contrary, it is no such admission. It's just that I don't spoon-feed adults on demand.
Originally Posted by HDQDD
There's a big difference between claiming something is true with no facts, than claiming something can't be proven with no facts.
Indeed, and neither was done by me.
Originally Posted by HDQDD
And a quick google search shows that those judgements are almost always meaningless.
Almost always, but not always, eh?
The judgments are not almost always meaningless, especially when the lawsuit in the US is against a foreign company with assets in the US.
Originally Posted by HDQDD
From Reuters: "To date I am not aware of a single case where a United States judgment has been enforced in China," said Owen Nee, a Jones Day lawyer who has been practicing in China for more than 30 years.
Is he aware of a US judgement enforced in the US against a Chinese company? He ought to be.
Originally Posted by HDQDD
I suspect the consumer is un"luck"y in either case. We can argue about whom is *less* "luck"y, but it's getting rather silly.
Do you really know anything about the US deliberately choosing to provide Chinese companies legal immunity for spying on US persons inside the US? Do you really know anything about the US providing legal immunity to US companies for spying on US persons inside the US? The latter you should be able to find out on your own pretty easily. With regard to the former, prepared for wasting time? You should be.
It's harder to sue and win against a manufacturer or service provider in the country whose government has granted immunity to the manufacturer or service provider being sued for spying on people. It's easier to sue and win against a manufacturer or service provider who hasn't been granted immunity in the jurisdiction where the lawsuit is filed. You'll need more luck to sue and win where the manufacturer or service provider has been granted immunity of sorts.
I find it amusing that a party would be worried about the security of a smartphone merely because it has a Chinese manufacturer when just about everyone has electronics made by Chinese manufacturers. Using a smartphone on a government-monitored network is a recipe for privacy invasion regardless of where the phone was manufactured when dealing with a major brand label, Chinese, American or whatnot.
I'm done with this thread, on that note.