5 ms·

There is some absurdity in the safe harbor provisions that cover people outside of US legal jurisdiction and also that provide protections even when the provide

by wang_li 10y ago

There is some absurdity in the safe harbor provisions that cover people outside of US legal jurisdiction and also that provide protections even when the provider has no actual business relationship with the customer or even any idea who the customer actually is. I've felt that an argument could be made that safe harbor provisions should only apply when the service provider can provide an actual identity associated with an account and that that person is within US legal jurisdiction.

fictioncircle 10y ago
> I've felt that an argument could be made that safe harbor provisions should only apply when the service provider can provide an actual identity associated with an account and that that person is within US legal jurisdiction. 1) How would they be able to verify that identity for a reasonable cost without being opened up to a DDoS vulnerability against their finances? 2) What happens when every country does it based on local jurisdiction and the internet gets balkanized?
- wang_li 10y ago
  #1 is like asking "how can this industrial chemical company be profitable if they can't just dump their waste in the sewers?" If a business model is only profitable because they can externalize some of the problems associated with that model, it does deserve certain scrutiny and those who are harmed by the model should have some recourse. #2 has already happened.
  - fictioncircle 10y ago
    > #1 is like asking "how can this industrial chemical company be profitable if they can't just dump their waste in the sewers?" If a business model is only profitable because they can externalize some of the problems associated with that model, it does deserve certain scrutiny and those who are harmed by the model should have some recourse. I'm not aware of any other business that is legally required to record every customer and link them to RL identities. You can still buy things with cash. So yeah, that is a terrible and blatantly false analogy. You are basically saying "Everyone has to be a subscription service with verifiable identities." Why are you on a site you believe morally shouldn't exist? > #2 has already happened. Not in the Western world.
    - wang_li 10y ago
      >I'm not aware of any other business that is legally required to record every customer and link them to RL identities. You can still buy things with cash. Go buy a gun sometime. Or non-prescription cold medications that contain pseudoephedrine. Or prescription medications. Or auto insurance. However, my response was not about identities specifically, but about whether society should really care if the things that it requires organizations to do as a prerequisite of doing business are inexpensive. Sometimes we make the judgment that it really is worthwhile to require a pharma lab to spend half a billion dollars before we let them sell their new pill to the public. >Not in the Western world. Do you not consider Europe as part of the Western world? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/french-google-right-to-be-forgotten-appeal https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/french-go...
      - fictioncircle 10y ago
        > Do you not consider Europe as part of the Western world? That isn't an example of what we are talking about and you should know that. If they can't enforce things as they do now, they'd need to block domains/firewall a la China. > Go buy a gun sometime. Or non-prescription cold medications that contain pseudoephedrine. Or prescription medications. Or auto insurance. You really are missing the point. You are talking about one off transactions of a substantial dollar value and not short-term online accounts with values measured in pennies. > However, my response was not about identities specifically, but about whether society should really care if the things that it requires organizations to do as a prerequisite of doing business are inexpensive. Sometimes we make the judgment that it really is worthwhile to require a pharma lab to spend half a billion dollars before we let them sell their new pill to the public. Alright, then stop posting on HN since you believe it should be legal to effectively shut it down. I mean, that is realistically the end result of what you are arguing for where the value-per-user is measured in pennies and you want them to verify people's identities per your original comment. Moving the goal posts now is pointless. > I've felt that an argument could be made that safe harbor provisions should only apply when the service provider can provide an actual identity associated with an account and that that person is within US legal jurisdiction. If you feel it is a legitimate regulation, you should voluntarily leave to show your commitment to it.
chc 10y ago
What is the benefit to requiring proof of jurisdiction, and do you really see that benefit being worth making most Internet forums — including this one — almost impossible to run legally? It seems to me the end effect of holding hosts' liable for users' speech would be that only the rich are allowed to communicate anything on the Internet.
- wang_li 10y ago
  >What is the benefit to requiring proof of jurisdiction, It ensures that those who are hurt by illegal actions don't have to travel to Swaziland to receive justice. >and do you really see that benefit being worth making most Internet forums — including this one — almost impossible to run legally? I do see a benefit to people whose rights are being violated.
  - Retra 10y ago
    It ensures that those who are causing hurt by illegal actions simply have to travel to Swaziland to avoid justice.
    - Silhouette 10y ago
      Those who are causing hurt remotely from a country outside any jurisdiction where the victim can realistically get help are already immune to justice. This discussion is, in large part, about whether services that knowingly or unknowingly help such people to cause harm but are within a jurisdiction where the victim can realistically get help should be immune as well. I wouldn't necessarily go as far as wang_li suggested in their first comment on this thread myself, but the general sentiment isn't unreasonable.

by wang_li 10y ago

fictioncircle 10y ago

> I've felt that an argument could be made that safe harbor provisions should only apply when the service provider can provide an actual identity associated with an account and that that person is within US legal jurisdiction. 1) How would they be able to verify that identity for a reasonable cost without being opened up to a DDoS vulnerability against their finances? 2) What happens when every country does it based on local jurisdiction and the internet gets balkanized?

wang_li 10y ago
#1 is like asking "how can this industrial chemical company be profitable if they can't just dump their waste in the sewers?" If a business model is only profitable because they can externalize some of the problems associated with that model, it does deserve certain scrutiny and those who are harmed by the model should have some recourse. #2 has already happened.
- fictioncircle 10y ago
  > #1 is like asking "how can this industrial chemical company be profitable if they can't just dump their waste in the sewers?" If a business model is only profitable because they can externalize some of the problems associated with that model, it does deserve certain scrutiny and those who are harmed by the model should have some recourse. I'm not aware of any other business that is legally required to record every customer and link them to RL identities. You can still buy things with cash. So yeah, that is a terrible and blatantly false analogy. You are basically saying "Everyone has to be a subscription service with verifiable identities." Why are you on a site you believe morally shouldn't exist? > #2 has already happened. Not in the Western world.
  - wang_li 10y ago
    >I'm not aware of any other business that is legally required to record every customer and link them to RL identities. You can still buy things with cash. Go buy a gun sometime. Or non-prescription cold medications that contain pseudoephedrine. Or prescription medications. Or auto insurance. However, my response was not about identities specifically, but about whether society should really care if the things that it requires organizations to do as a prerequisite of doing business are inexpensive. Sometimes we make the judgment that it really is worthwhile to require a pharma lab to spend half a billion dollars before we let them sell their new pill to the public. >Not in the Western world. Do you not consider Europe as part of the Western world? https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/french-google-right-to-be-forgotten-appeal https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/french-go...
    - fictioncircle 10y ago
      > Do you not consider Europe as part of the Western world? That isn't an example of what we are talking about and you should know that. If they can't enforce things as they do now, they'd need to block domains/firewall a la China. > Go buy a gun sometime. Or non-prescription cold medications that contain pseudoephedrine. Or prescription medications. Or auto insurance. You really are missing the point. You are talking about one off transactions of a substantial dollar value and not short-term online accounts with values measured in pennies. > However, my response was not about identities specifically, but about whether society should really care if the things that it requires organizations to do as a prerequisite of doing business are inexpensive. Sometimes we make the judgment that it really is worthwhile to require a pharma lab to spend half a billion dollars before we let them sell their new pill to the public. Alright, then stop posting on HN since you believe it should be legal to effectively shut it down. I mean, that is realistically the end result of what you are arguing for where the value-per-user is measured in pennies and you want them to verify people's identities per your original comment. Moving the goal posts now is pointless. > I've felt that an argument could be made that safe harbor provisions should only apply when the service provider can provide an actual identity associated with an account and that that person is within US legal jurisdiction. If you feel it is a legitimate regulation, you should voluntarily leave to show your commitment to it.

chc 10y ago

What is the benefit to requiring proof of jurisdiction, and do you really see that benefit being worth making most Internet forums — including this one — almost impossible to run legally? It seems to me the end effect of holding hosts' liable for users' speech would be that only the rich are allowed to communicate anything on the Internet.

wang_li 10y ago
>What is the benefit to requiring proof of jurisdiction, It ensures that those who are hurt by illegal actions don't have to travel to Swaziland to receive justice. >and do you really see that benefit being worth making most Internet forums — including this one — almost impossible to run legally? I do see a benefit to people whose rights are being violated.
- Retra 10y ago
  It ensures that those who are causing hurt by illegal actions simply have to travel to Swaziland to avoid justice.
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    Those who are causing hurt remotely from a country outside any jurisdiction where the victim can realistically get help are already immune to justice. This discussion is, in large part, about whether services that knowingly or unknowingly help such people to cause harm but are within a jurisdiction where the victim can realistically get help should be immune as well. I wouldn't necessarily go as far as wang_li suggested in their first comment on this thread myself, but the general sentiment isn't unreasonable.