4 ms·

Is an internationally-available Internet service running legally in its source jurisdiction obligated to prevent people from using it to break their local laws

by gpcz 11y ago

Is an internationally-available Internet service running legally in its source jurisdiction obligated to prevent people from using it to break their local laws either legally or ethically?

skissane 11y ago
Ethically, that depends on whose ethics you are talking about. Some people say we are ethically obliged (within reason) to obey the law, even if the behaviour the law prohibits is not in itself unethical - those people would likely say "Yes", at least in some cases. Other people deny that there is any ethical obligation to obey the law, except when the law's demands happen to be the same as those of ethics, so those people might answer "No". Legally, the answer can be yes. If I commit a crime in country A, and you in country B help me, then you've likely committed a crime (as an accessory) under the laws of A too - even if B doesn't recognise my or your behaviour as criminal. Now, B will probably refuse extradition, but if you ever voluntarily come to A, you would be at the mercy of A's legal system.
- acqq 11y ago
  Are there really any court sentences in the US, in, let's say, the last 20 years, for "helping somebody committing adultery?" How much a "helper" can get?
  - skissane 11y ago
    I don't believe so. But on the other hand, it's not like laws stop working if you don't use them. Under Utah law, adultery is a class B misdemeanor (Utah Code 76-7-103), so conspiracy to commit adultery is a class C misdemeanour (Utah Code 76-4-202). So I think if a married person in Utah used the Ashley Madison website to arrange an affair, a Utah district attorney could justifiably charge Ashley Madison and/or its employees with conspiracy to commit adultery. Now, a class C misdemeanor, the maximum punishment is 90 days in jail (Utah Code 76-3-204), and a maximum fine of $750 for a natural person (Utah Code 76-3-301) and $1000 for a corporation (Utah Code 76-3-302) - so a DA might well decide it is not worthwhile. But, if they wanted to prove a point, I can't see why they couldn't bring the charges. Maybe if they had some personal connection to the affair; or maybe they might think the publicity would help their re-election campaign. Since Ashley Madison is based in Canada, I doubt Canada would agree to extradition - but if its employees or owners venture into the US, their extradition to Utah could be sought - intra-state extradition in the US is legally available even for misdemeanours. Now, if it all got this far, and further, the Supreme Court might decide laws against adultery are unconstitutional, but then again they might not decide that (or might refuse to hear the appeal). While I agree the story I'm telling here is somewhat unlikely to actually happen, I don't think there is anything legally impossible about it, and I'd call it somewhat unlikely rather than highly improbable.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      But the info was stolen - so inadmissible, right? They're all safe because of this leak.
      - skissane 11y ago
        Evidence obtained illegally is only inadmissible if the illegal act was committed by a government agent. Evidence obtained through the illegal act of a private party is perfectly admissible. See Burdeau v. McDowell: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/465/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/465/case.htm...
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        There's a great business model: a private company that hacks for the prosecutor in deserving cases. Probably make some good money, and do a public good!
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        SO, its only ok if its done for free? Or out of juvenile glee at hurting powerful people?
        skissane 11y ago
        In a scenario in which a private actor, of its own volition and for its own reasons, decides to conduct a search, and then chooses to reveal the results of the search to the government, it is clear from Burdeau v. McDowell that evidence should not be excluded. But if a company's primary business was performing warantless searches for the government, paid for by the government and at its direction, I think it is very likely a court would find that private actor to be a government agent, and thus evidence collected should be excluded. If an arrangement exists for the primary purpose of evading the Fourth Amendment, many judges would disapprove of that and try to shut it down. But to my limited knowledge, this scenario has never been presented to a court.

by gpcz 11y ago

Is an internationally-available Internet service running legally in its source jurisdiction obligated to prevent people from using it to break their local laws either legally or ethically?

skissane 11y ago

Ethically, that depends on whose ethics you are talking about. Some people say we are ethically obliged (within reason) to obey the law, even if the behaviour the law prohibits is not in itself unethical - those people would likely say "Yes", at least in some cases. Other people deny that there is any ethical obligation to obey the law, except when the law's demands happen to be the same as those of ethics, so those people might answer "No". Legally, the answer can be yes. If I commit a crime in country A, and you in country B help me, then you've likely committed a crime (as an accessory) under the laws of A too - even if B doesn't recognise my or your behaviour as criminal. Now, B will probably refuse extradition, but if you ever voluntarily come to A, you would be at the mercy of A's legal system.

acqq 11y ago
Are there really any court sentences in the US, in, let's say, the last 20 years, for "helping somebody committing adultery?" How much a "helper" can get?
- skissane 11y ago
  I don't believe so. But on the other hand, it's not like laws stop working if you don't use them. Under Utah law, adultery is a class B misdemeanor (Utah Code 76-7-103), so conspiracy to commit adultery is a class C misdemeanour (Utah Code 76-4-202). So I think if a married person in Utah used the Ashley Madison website to arrange an affair, a Utah district attorney could justifiably charge Ashley Madison and/or its employees with conspiracy to commit adultery. Now, a class C misdemeanor, the maximum punishment is 90 days in jail (Utah Code 76-3-204), and a maximum fine of $750 for a natural person (Utah Code 76-3-301) and $1000 for a corporation (Utah Code 76-3-302) - so a DA might well decide it is not worthwhile. But, if they wanted to prove a point, I can't see why they couldn't bring the charges. Maybe if they had some personal connection to the affair; or maybe they might think the publicity would help their re-election campaign. Since Ashley Madison is based in Canada, I doubt Canada would agree to extradition - but if its employees or owners venture into the US, their extradition to Utah could be sought - intra-state extradition in the US is legally available even for misdemeanours. Now, if it all got this far, and further, the Supreme Court might decide laws against adultery are unconstitutional, but then again they might not decide that (or might refuse to hear the appeal). While I agree the story I'm telling here is somewhat unlikely to actually happen, I don't think there is anything legally impossible about it, and I'd call it somewhat unlikely rather than highly improbable.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    But the info was stolen - so inadmissible, right? They're all safe because of this leak.
    - skissane 11y ago
      Evidence obtained illegally is only inadmissible if the illegal act was committed by a government agent. Evidence obtained through the illegal act of a private party is perfectly admissible. See Burdeau v. McDowell: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/465/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/465/case.htm...
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        There's a great business model: a private company that hacks for the prosecutor in deserving cases. Probably make some good money, and do a public good!
        JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        SO, its only ok if its done for free? Or out of juvenile glee at hurting powerful people?
        skissane 11y ago
        In a scenario in which a private actor, of its own volition and for its own reasons, decides to conduct a search, and then chooses to reveal the results of the search to the government, it is clear from Burdeau v. McDowell that evidence should not be excluded. But if a company's primary business was performing warantless searches for the government, paid for by the government and at its direction, I think it is very likely a court would find that private actor to be a government agent, and thus evidence collected should be excluded. If an arrangement exists for the primary purpose of evading the Fourth Amendment, many judges would disapprove of that and try to shut it down. But to my limited knowledge, this scenario has never been presented to a court.