3 ms·

Like I said, I don't disagree with most of your sentiments. However, the fact that it was ruled unconstitutional refutes your assertion that it is illegal in th

by falien 16y ago

Like I said, I don't disagree with most of your sentiments. However, the fact that it was ruled unconstitutional refutes your assertion that it is illegal in the US, when in fact that law itself was determined to be illegal. I'm well aware that free speech in the US is limited, but I'm not aware of any other such draconian limitations that have been determined to be constitutional in the recent past. I would be interested to know about them (or possibly argue with you about them :P) if you cite some. While I'm painfully aware that the US is at a point on the spectrum far from what I consider to be ideal, that point is very much closer to my ideal than the point China occupies, and even the point most other western democracies occupy (that last was hugely disappointing to me when I realized it). The comment that struck me as most intellectually dishonest was the parallel you drew between the arrest of the British(?) businessman engaging in business which is illegal in the US, with US customers residing and present in the US when the business was conducted, with the arrest of a US citizen and/or foreign provider of marijuana in which the transaction occurs completely outside of the US where they claim no jurisdiction. To be sure there are many cases in which the US Govt oversteps its jurisdictional boundaries and they are not hard to find, so I found that comparison to be questionable. Lastly, I saw lower down in the comments that you volunteered your services to the OP and found it admirable, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Edit: I'm also not sure why you're getting downvoted on valid comments, even if I don't agree with them.

jacquesm 16y ago
I'm sorry, I keep up as good as I can with US law but every now and then something slips by me. I should have read that piece in its entirety before linking to it, I just wanted to have a reference to the kind of abuse I had in mind. If you're just as up-to-date to Dutch law as I am on the laws of the United States and you're an American than my hat is off to you ;) Once again, apologies. The things that most bother me about the US is the increased collaboration behind the scenes when it comes to telcos and the NSA, most of that is invisible but every now and then you get a glimmer of what's going on and it is simply scary. Furthermore, the US intelligence services have already at least once in the past used their information to conduct industrial espionage on behalf of a US company abroad (search for enercon). The fact that any or all of that is in the past makes little or no difference to me, it suggests strongly that there is stuff going down today, just that we won't know about it for a while, if ever. As for the Marijuana/Betonsports analogy, I think it is perfectly legal, in both cases the United States has nothing to do with what is going on, they are illegally projecting their laws to have effect outside of their borders. The real reason why this case went down the way it did is not because betting in the US is illegal, the US government would simply like their cut. Here in NL the exact same thing is happening and I'm as much against it as I think betonsports should have been allowed to operate. A government should not have any say in how a foreign company runs its business. > Lastly, I saw lower down in the comments that you volunteered your services to the OP and found it admirable, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything. As for what that has to do with anything, I thought that it showed that I concede there is a problem, but instead of berating the OP for making stupid choices in life (which I think he has not made, even though I suggested that he could move, but that's some of the sentiment above) instead of the 'wise' ones to go and live in a 'free' country instead I chose to act. Talk is cheap. > I'm also not sure why you're getting downvoted on valid comments, even if I don't agree with them. As for the downvotes, it goes with the territory, HN used to be the place where you could have an argument and be on the un-popular side of it without a bunch of downvotes but that time is mostly gone. I agree with you that China and the US are not at the same point when it comes to 'freedom', but both have a long way to go (as do most other countries), and the situation in China is not nearly as bad as some here would have you believe. That's just fear mongering.
- falien 16y ago
  I try to keep up with EU technology law, but I'm afraid I only keep up with specifics for individual countries when its widely covered. You can keep your hat on :P Many things that our intelligence agencies do disturbs me as well, and in fact the policy on the NSA telecom cooperation case as well as other areas where I consider the government to be acting unconstitutionally are my biggest gripe with the Obama administration. Back to marijuana betonsports: I still disagree. That type of betting is strictly prohibited, and while I think that law should be removed, it is a perfectly valid law to enforce, despite its being driven by a desire for tax revenue and a large dose of hypocrisy. The fact that the provider of the service is not in the US means that they generally will not be gone after as long as they remain outside the US (assuming they are not breaking their own country's laws) unless their own country agrees for some reason that they should be extradited. However once they set foot on US soil the US govt is well within its rights to arrest them. They did break a US law interacting with people under US jurisdiction. The appropriate marijuana comparison in my opinion, would be when a US citizen mail ordered marijuana from someone who is allowed to export it under their local laws. Ignoring any illegal actions taken by other people to get the drugs into the US, should the marijuana dealer be immune to arrest when they enter the US? As far as the "must leave china" comments, I agree, and now I see why you made that comment. I sometimes tend to disconnect specific comments I want to respond to from the larger discussion, so please don't take any comments I made as implicit agreement with the people you're already arguing with. ;) And I'd tend to say that just about everywhere is much more towards the middle of the freedom spectrum than most people believe. Its just so much easier to think in black and white than all those greys that make up the real world.
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    > They did break a US law interacting with people under US jurisdiction. I disagree with you there, it was the people in the US that were under US jurisdiction, betonsports was not an American company and so American jurisdiction does not apply to them. The fact that the guy was arrested on a sealed warrant is quite telling, if he was really in violation of the law in his jurisdiction they would have applied for his extradition instead. The US would like its law to extend to all the countries in the world, but in turn does not even allow its citizens to stand trial abroad when for instance accused of war crimes. Incidentally, I feel the same about France trying to apply its laws to Yahoo! and Ebay, and Italy trying to apply its laws to Google (though, in both cases the company involved did have a presence on the soil of those countries, but said presences were absolutely not involved in the perceived transgressions). I prefer to see the grays :) Keeps me sane and stops me from going all out about 'how great' the place where I happen to live is, a bit of perspective is badly needed. > They did break a US law interacting with people under US jurisdiction. The appropriate marijuana comparison in my opinion, would be when a US citizen mail ordered marijuana from someone who is allowed to export it under their local laws. Ignoring any illegal actions taken by other people to get the drugs into the US, should the marijuana dealer be immune to arrest when they enter the US? Good question. My point of view would be 'absolutely not'. And my main reason for feeling that way is that it should not be a requirement of a business abroad to even be aware of all the laws and statues of countries where they are not based when doing business over the internet. If the bets were legal in England it doesn't matter whether a US person visits in person or the transaction takes place online. The drugs scenario you describe is being acted out every day by the way.

by falien 16y ago

jacquesm 16y ago

I'm sorry, I keep up as good as I can with US law but every now and then something slips by me. I should have read that piece in its entirety before linking to it, I just wanted to have a reference to the kind of abuse I had in mind. If you're just as up-to-date to Dutch law as I am on the laws of the United States and you're an American than my hat is off to you ;) Once again, apologies. The things that most bother me about the US is the increased collaboration behind the scenes when it comes to telcos and the NSA, most of that is invisible but every now and then you get a glimmer of what's going on and it is simply scary. Furthermore, the US intelligence services have already at least once in the past used their information to conduct industrial espionage on behalf of a US company abroad (search for enercon). The fact that any or all of that is in the past makes little or no difference to me, it suggests strongly that there is stuff going down today, just that we won't know about it for a while, if ever. As for the Marijuana/Betonsports analogy, I think it is perfectly legal, in both cases the United States has nothing to do with what is going on, they are illegally projecting their laws to have effect outside of their borders. The real reason why this case went down the way it did is not because betting in the US is illegal, the US government would simply like their cut. Here in NL the exact same thing is happening and I'm as much against it as I think betonsports should have been allowed to operate. A government should not have any say in how a foreign company runs its business. > Lastly, I saw lower down in the comments that you volunteered your services to the OP and found it admirable, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything. As for what that has to do with anything, I thought that it showed that I concede there is a problem, but instead of berating the OP for making stupid choices in life (which I think he has not made, even though I suggested that he could move, but that's some of the sentiment above) instead of the 'wise' ones to go and live in a 'free' country instead I chose to act. Talk is cheap. > I'm also not sure why you're getting downvoted on valid comments, even if I don't agree with them. As for the downvotes, it goes with the territory, HN used to be the place where you could have an argument and be on the un-popular side of it without a bunch of downvotes but that time is mostly gone. I agree with you that China and the US are not at the same point when it comes to 'freedom', but both have a long way to go (as do most other countries), and the situation in China is not nearly as bad as some here would have you believe. That's just fear mongering.

falien 16y ago
I try to keep up with EU technology law, but I'm afraid I only keep up with specifics for individual countries when its widely covered. You can keep your hat on :P Many things that our intelligence agencies do disturbs me as well, and in fact the policy on the NSA telecom cooperation case as well as other areas where I consider the government to be acting unconstitutionally are my biggest gripe with the Obama administration. Back to marijuana betonsports: I still disagree. That type of betting is strictly prohibited, and while I think that law should be removed, it is a perfectly valid law to enforce, despite its being driven by a desire for tax revenue and a large dose of hypocrisy. The fact that the provider of the service is not in the US means that they generally will not be gone after as long as they remain outside the US (assuming they are not breaking their own country's laws) unless their own country agrees for some reason that they should be extradited. However once they set foot on US soil the US govt is well within its rights to arrest them. They did break a US law interacting with people under US jurisdiction. The appropriate marijuana comparison in my opinion, would be when a US citizen mail ordered marijuana from someone who is allowed to export it under their local laws. Ignoring any illegal actions taken by other people to get the drugs into the US, should the marijuana dealer be immune to arrest when they enter the US? As far as the "must leave china" comments, I agree, and now I see why you made that comment. I sometimes tend to disconnect specific comments I want to respond to from the larger discussion, so please don't take any comments I made as implicit agreement with the people you're already arguing with. ;) And I'd tend to say that just about everywhere is much more towards the middle of the freedom spectrum than most people believe. Its just so much easier to think in black and white than all those greys that make up the real world.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  > They did break a US law interacting with people under US jurisdiction. I disagree with you there, it was the people in the US that were under US jurisdiction, betonsports was not an American company and so American jurisdiction does not apply to them. The fact that the guy was arrested on a sealed warrant is quite telling, if he was really in violation of the law in his jurisdiction they would have applied for his extradition instead. The US would like its law to extend to all the countries in the world, but in turn does not even allow its citizens to stand trial abroad when for instance accused of war crimes. Incidentally, I feel the same about France trying to apply its laws to Yahoo! and Ebay, and Italy trying to apply its laws to Google (though, in both cases the company involved did have a presence on the soil of those countries, but said presences were absolutely not involved in the perceived transgressions). I prefer to see the grays :) Keeps me sane and stops me from going all out about 'how great' the place where I happen to live is, a bit of perspective is badly needed. > They did break a US law interacting with people under US jurisdiction. The appropriate marijuana comparison in my opinion, would be when a US citizen mail ordered marijuana from someone who is allowed to export it under their local laws. Ignoring any illegal actions taken by other people to get the drugs into the US, should the marijuana dealer be immune to arrest when they enter the US? Good question. My point of view would be 'absolutely not'. And my main reason for feeling that way is that it should not be a requirement of a business abroad to even be aware of all the laws and statues of countries where they are not based when doing business over the internet. If the bets were legal in England it doesn't matter whether a US person visits in person or the transaction takes place online. The drugs scenario you describe is being acted out every day by the way.