[kube-system]

Incorporating a subsidiary in a foreign country doesn't make the parent company immune to the legal obligations it has in it's home country. It would be absurd if that were the case. Sometimes people try setting up subsidiaries overseas to hide their evasion of the law, but it is illegal to do so.

[lmm]

> Incorporating a subsidiary in a foreign country doesn't make the parent company immune to the legal obligations it has in it's home country.

We're not talking about legal obligations in its home country though. I can buy Jack Daniels at age 19 in my country from their local subsidiary, and no-one thinks that this should be a crime for their US parent company because the US drinking age is higher. (Of course it would be a crime for either the parent or the subsidiary to sell to 19 year olds in the US)

(No-one is blaming Dell or Let's Encrypt here, to be clear, it's the US' excessive extraterritorial laws that are the problem)

[kube-system]

If you are in the US you must ensure that your local company, and any sub-entity you control abroad complies with sanctions law. That is US law, and the US can apply that law to Dell the parent company, because it is in the US and controls the subsidary.

> I can buy Jack Daniels at age 19 in my country from their local subsidiary, and no-one thinks that this should be a crime for their US parent company because the US drinking age is higher.

Because there is no US law that says you cannot sell alcohol to people abroad under 19. Heck, there's no US federal law that says Jack Daniels can't sell to people in the US under 19, either. And in fact, there are some places in the US where you can legally drink at 18, e.g. Puerto Rico. But if the US congress wanted to pass one of these laws and enforce it, it could.

[lmm]

US sanctions law saying that you must not transfer X from the US to Iran, directly or indirectly, is reasonable. US sanctions law saying that you must not transfer X from Brazil to Iran is gross overreach. Yes, of course the US can apply its absurdly extraterritorial laws to any parent company in the US, just as Iran could penalise any Iranian company whose US subsidiary distributed a depiction of the prophet or whatever, but that doesn't make it good law or good practice.

[kube-system]

That's a fair opinion to have.

But the US isn't really unique in applying their laws extraterritorially. See GDPR, Universal jurisdiction laws, China's National Security Law, etc... Every jurisdiction with sizable power does it. Some of these are even more extraterritorial in scope than US sanctions are.

[lmm]

> GDPR

Only applies to EU citizens' personal data, so while technically extraterritorial it doesn't feel like overreach in the same way.

> Universal jurisdiction laws

Rightly controversial when applied beyond things that are internationally agreed to be crimes against humanity, like torture or genocide.

> China's National Security Law

A perfect example of the kind of thing that the US used to define itself in opposition to.

Nations are sovereign and those with the might to push their requirements on others can do so. But I liked it better when we had a sense of the value of an open international order, where things like internet protocols were shared standards that everyone would collaborate on other than a handful of pariah states.

[kube-system]

The difference between any of these is just a matter of opinion on what sovereignty means, what or who or where it applies to, what is a “human rights violation”, and who has the bigger britches to back it up. /shrug

[M2Ys4U]

>Only applies to EU citizens' personal data

That's not true.

The GDPR applies to the personal data of anyone physically in the EU, to the extent that the data are processed[0] while they are in the EU.

It also applies to the personal data of anybody anywhere in the world if the data controllers are based in the EU.

The reason why it's different to US sanctions/export controls is that the GDPR doesn't say you can't work with certain people in certain circumstances because of who they are in order to punish those people for whatever reason. It's fundamentally to protect the data subjects.

[0] which includes collection of said data

[cassianoleal]

You may call it a subsidiary all you want, but it's still a company that's wholly incorporated in foreign soil, doing business in foreign soil.

At least in Brazil, companies that operate there must obey local laws. What happens when those laws are in contradiction with US laws, like in the example I cited? Is Brazil supposed to cave? Is Brazil supposed to keep fining Dell Brasil until it folds? Maybe prosecute Dell Brasil's directors for actively and repeatedly disregarding the law and fines?

How does that work on a global scale?

I'll say again, this is not about a US company opening a foreign subsidiary to do things in the US that are forbidden in the US. This is about a company incorporated abroad having to follow US laws while operating wholly abroad. This is a breach of sovereignty however you look at it.

[kube-system]

It is plainly routine for a company to have to deal with multiple legal jurisdictions at a time.

Yes, sometimes this causes compliance complication. This isn't unusual, it happens frequently.

Ultimately, every government exercises the laws of their country as they see fit, using the enforcement tools they have available to them. These rules often extend outside of their borders and apply to foreign or partially-foreign entities depending on the situation. The only limits on this are the practical means of enforcing it.

Dell Brazil would have been subject to Cuba sanctions because it was controlled by the US parent company. The US has obvious jurisdiction over Dell Technologies the parent company, and the nexus to enforce it.

Nothing you are are describing is even remotely unique to the US. No country is going to let you set up a foreign subsidiary to launder goods around sanctions law. If they did, everyone would do that and nobody would ever follow sanctions.