3 ms·

Other countries can try to block that content, or they can try to punish their own residents for viewing it. Why would residents of the permissive country comp

Other countries can try to block that content, or they can try to punish their own residents for viewing it. Why would residents of the permissive country comply with a foreign court order?

jhasse 9y ago
> Other countries can try to block that content Opens the door for censorship. > they can try to punish their own residents for viewing it. Impossible without more surveillance > Why would residents of the permissive country comply with a foreign court order? Let's say you want to travel to the country at some point in the future.
detuur 9y ago
> try to block Excellent phrasing. They can try. And they'll fail. Blocking is trivially easy to avoid and circumvent. As long as there's no jurisdiction, a country can't take any action against a criminal site, it can only take steps to protect its population from harmful outside influence, which is by blocking. The offenders remain free and often unidentified. But when there is jurisdiction, a country can take offensive action. It gives legal ground to investigate the involved persons, it gives permission to hack the website, it gives permission to hijack it and replace it by honeypots. It gives the weapons to not just temporarily silence criminals, but to destroy their enterprise and bring them to justice. Remote jurisdiction is the base of modern countermeasures against websites and servers involved in drugs, child pornography, terrorism, and human trafficking. Without it, the only logical way to protect your population is to erect deep-scanning firewalls and abolishing free traffic across national networks, much like China and Iran are doing.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > But when there is jurisdiction, a country can take offensive action. That isn't what jurisdiction means. You're describing the digital equivalent of covert operations in a foreign country. > Without it, the only logical way to protect your population is to erect deep-scanning firewalls and abolishing free traffic across national networks, much like China and Iran are doing. It would work perfectly well to publish free open source scanning software and allow your citizens to voluntarily use it if they want to be "protected" from such things. Unless your citizens are the perpetrators rather than the victims, but in that case you haven't got a jurisdictional problem.
  - detuur 9y ago
    Covert operations are by definition extra-judicial. They knowingly break laws and international agreements and rely on diplomacy to take care of it later. That's not what's happening with offensive action against criminal sites. If you run a gambling website on a local server without a proper permit in many countries, you'll get sued first. If you don't take down the website when a judge orders you to, police will try to move on to confiscating the server (with a warrant) and/or blocking access (with a warrant). If you evade those measures, eventually computer crime units will move on to hacking into your server (with a warrant) to locate and disable it. It's simple enforcement of the law. Hacking is an extreme measure, but not extra-judicial. Even when servers are abroad and regular confiscation isn't an option, often local law enforcement will seize servers on behalf of foreign jurisdiction. Only when local police is unwilling to cooperate will hacking be used. And it's used all the time, with the appropriate warrants and within the bounds of law. Don't conflate this with NSA hacking which is very extra-judicial and most definitely illegal. The notion of "voluntary protection" is ridiculous. "Here, citizen, use this app to be warned when you're entering areas with drug violence. Now you're protected." Law enforcement isn't only supposed to protect citizens, but also to combat criminality. Many materials are treated very differently whether you're a consumer or distributor. If criminals run an illegal gambling website, drug trading website, revenge porn website, or any other illegal website you might think of, then even under your narrow interpretation of jurisdiction it would be law enforcement's duty to shut down that website's access nationwide, and not rely on some sort of bullshit voluntary protection.
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      > Covert operations are by definition extra-judicial. Might want to take that up the the military judges who make decisions about them all the time. They're extra-judicial in the target countries, but so is what you want to do. > It's simple enforcement of the law. It's law enforcement taking action in a foreign country without that country's permission. In violation of their laws. You're saying it's OK for the US to hack a gambling site hosted in a foreign country because it's illegal in the US. How does that not justify China hacking a pro-democracy website hosted in the US because it's illegal in China? > "Here, citizen, use this app to be warned when you're entering areas with drug violence. Now you're protected." The US State Department does exactly that when the area of drug violence is in another country. What are they supposed to do? Invade? > If criminals run an illegal gambling website, drug trading website, revenge porn website, or any other illegal website you might think of, then even under your narrow interpretation of jurisdiction it would be law enforcement's duty to shut down that website's access nationwide, and not rely on some sort of bullshit voluntary protection. People have been placing illegal bets by mail since the invention of mail. That has never justified the government in reading everybody's mail, much less bombing Ireland after their local law enforcement doesn't put a stop to it.

Other countries can try to block that content, or they can try to punish their own residents for viewing it. Why would residents of the permissive country comply with a foreign court order?

jhasse 9y ago

> Other countries can try to block that content Opens the door for censorship. > they can try to punish their own residents for viewing it. Impossible without more surveillance > Why would residents of the permissive country comply with a foreign court order? Let's say you want to travel to the country at some point in the future.

detuur 9y ago

> try to block Excellent phrasing. They can try. And they'll fail. Blocking is trivially easy to avoid and circumvent. As long as there's no jurisdiction, a country can't take any action against a criminal site, it can only take steps to protect its population from harmful outside influence, which is by blocking. The offenders remain free and often unidentified. But when there is jurisdiction, a country can take offensive action. It gives legal ground to investigate the involved persons, it gives permission to hack the website, it gives permission to hijack it and replace it by honeypots. It gives the weapons to not just temporarily silence criminals, but to destroy their enterprise and bring them to justice. Remote jurisdiction is the base of modern countermeasures against websites and servers involved in drugs, child pornography, terrorism, and human trafficking. Without it, the only logical way to protect your population is to erect deep-scanning firewalls and abolishing free traffic across national networks, much like China and Iran are doing.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> But when there is jurisdiction, a country can take offensive action. That isn't what jurisdiction means. You're describing the digital equivalent of covert operations in a foreign country. > Without it, the only logical way to protect your population is to erect deep-scanning firewalls and abolishing free traffic across national networks, much like China and Iran are doing. It would work perfectly well to publish free open source scanning software and allow your citizens to voluntarily use it if they want to be "protected" from such things. Unless your citizens are the perpetrators rather than the victims, but in that case you haven't got a jurisdictional problem.
- detuur 9y ago
  Covert operations are by definition extra-judicial. They knowingly break laws and international agreements and rely on diplomacy to take care of it later. That's not what's happening with offensive action against criminal sites. If you run a gambling website on a local server without a proper permit in many countries, you'll get sued first. If you don't take down the website when a judge orders you to, police will try to move on to confiscating the server (with a warrant) and/or blocking access (with a warrant). If you evade those measures, eventually computer crime units will move on to hacking into your server (with a warrant) to locate and disable it. It's simple enforcement of the law. Hacking is an extreme measure, but not extra-judicial. Even when servers are abroad and regular confiscation isn't an option, often local law enforcement will seize servers on behalf of foreign jurisdiction. Only when local police is unwilling to cooperate will hacking be used. And it's used all the time, with the appropriate warrants and within the bounds of law. Don't conflate this with NSA hacking which is very extra-judicial and most definitely illegal. The notion of "voluntary protection" is ridiculous. "Here, citizen, use this app to be warned when you're entering areas with drug violence. Now you're protected." Law enforcement isn't only supposed to protect citizens, but also to combat criminality. Many materials are treated very differently whether you're a consumer or distributor. If criminals run an illegal gambling website, drug trading website, revenge porn website, or any other illegal website you might think of, then even under your narrow interpretation of jurisdiction it would be law enforcement's duty to shut down that website's access nationwide, and not rely on some sort of bullshit voluntary protection.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > Covert operations are by definition extra-judicial. Might want to take that up the the military judges who make decisions about them all the time. They're extra-judicial in the target countries, but so is what you want to do. > It's simple enforcement of the law. It's law enforcement taking action in a foreign country without that country's permission. In violation of their laws. You're saying it's OK for the US to hack a gambling site hosted in a foreign country because it's illegal in the US. How does that not justify China hacking a pro-democracy website hosted in the US because it's illegal in China? > "Here, citizen, use this app to be warned when you're entering areas with drug violence. Now you're protected." The US State Department does exactly that when the area of drug violence is in another country. What are they supposed to do? Invade? > If criminals run an illegal gambling website, drug trading website, revenge porn website, or any other illegal website you might think of, then even under your narrow interpretation of jurisdiction it would be law enforcement's duty to shut down that website's access nationwide, and not rely on some sort of bullshit voluntary protection. People have been placing illegal bets by mail since the invention of mail. That has never justified the government in reading everybody's mail, much less bombing Ireland after their local law enforcement doesn't put a stop to it.