No, state decides on the rules of the game any business is playing by.

In France it's possible without legal consequences (though immoral), if you call 119, you can push to have a baby taken from a family for no reason except that you do not like someone.

Claim that you suspect there may be abuse, it will trigger a case for a "worrying situation".

Then it's a procedural lottery:

-> If you get lucky, they will investigate, meet the people, and dismiss the case.

-> If you get unlucky, they will take the baby, and it's only then after a long investigation and a "family assistant" (that will check you every day), that you can recover your baby.

Typically, ex-wife who doesn't like the ex-husband, but it can be a neighbor etc.

One worker explains that they don't really have time to investigate when processing reports: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VG9y_-4kGQA and they have to act very fast, and by default, it is safer to remove from family.

The boss of such agency doesn't even take the time to answer to the journalists there...

-> Example of such case (this man is innocent): https://www.lefigaro.fr/faits-divers/var-un-homme-se-mobilis...

but I can't blame them either, it's not easy to make the right calls.

From what I hear, Ma made 1 speech critical of the government and Xi showed him his place. It was a few years, a year of total disappearance followed by slow rehab.

But China is different. Not sure most of western europe will go that far in most cases.

fighter jets ARE a threat of violence, and it is widely understood and acknowledged.

Again: the threat is so clear that you rarely have to execute on it.

> lawfare is... good now?

Well, when everything is lawfare it logically follows that it won't always be good or always be bad. It seems Al Capone being taken down for tax fraud would similarly be lawfare by these standards, or am I missing something? Perhaps lawfare (sometimes referred to as "prosecuting criminal charges", as far as I can tell, given this context) is just in some cases and unjust in others.

France has Ariane, which was good enough to send Jame Web Telescope to some Lagrange point with extra precision. It's all fun and and games until the French finish their cigarette, arms French Guyana and fire ze missiles.

> defendents have rights and due process.

As they say: you can beat the rap but not the ride. If a state wants to make your life incredibly difficult for months or even years they can, the competent ones can even do it while staying (mostly) on the right side of the law.

> Also, they are restricted in how they use it, and defendents have rights and due process.

It's a nice sentiment, if true. ICE is out there, right now today, ignoring both individual rights as well as due process.

> Also, they are restricted in how they use it, and defendents have rights and due process.

As we're seeing with the current US President... the government doesn't (have to) care.

In any case, CSAM is the one thing other than Islamist terrorism that will bypass a lot of restrictions on how police are supposed to operate (see e.g. Encrochat, An0m) across virtually all civilized nations. Western nations also will take anything that remotely smells like Russia as a justification.

>> they are restricted in how they use it, and defendents have rights and due process.

That due process only exists to the extent the branches of govt are independent, have co-equal power, and can hold and act upon different views of the situation.

When all branches of govt are corrupted or corrupted to serve the executive, as in autocracies, that due process exists only if the executive likes you, or accepts your bribes. That is why there is such a huge push by right-wing parties to take over the levers of power, so they can keep their power even after they would lose at the ballot box.

One can also say we do too little for children who get mistreated. Taking care of other peoples children is never easy the decision needs to be fast and effective and no one wants to take the decision to end it. Because there are those rare cases were children dies because of a reunion with their parents.

The authorities will request the keys for local servers and will get them. As for remote ones (outside of France jurisdiction) it depends where they are and how much X wants to make their life difficult.

> if it were illegal, then why didn't Uber get criminal charges or fines?

They had a sweet deal with Macron. Prosecution became hard to continue once he got involved.

It is aggressive compliance. The legality would be determined by the courts as usual.

Of course they will not lock the data but hide it, and put some redacted or otherwise innocent files in their place.

From HN, of course! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32057651

What a strange assumption. The training is "summon the lawyers immediately", "ensure they're accompanied at all times while on company premises", etc.

>withholding evidence from the prosecution, you are going to jail if you follow.

Prosecution must present a valid search warrant for *specific* information. They don't get a carte blanche, so uber way is correct. lock computers and lets the courts to decide.

The training is very much the opposite.

mine had a scene where some bro tried to organise the resistance. A voice over told us that he was arrested for blocking a legal investigation and was liable for being fired due to reputational damage.

X's training might be like you described, but everywhere else that is vaguely beholden to law and order would be opposite.

It wouldn't be the first time a Musk company knowingly does something illegal.

I think as far as Musk is concerned, laws only apply in the "don't get caught" sense.