3 ms·

From the rules for .IO domains that he links to (emphasis mine): "No .IO domain may be used, directly or indirectly, for any purpose that is sexual or pornogra

by dfranke 16y ago

From the rules for .IO domains that he links to (emphasis mine): "No .IO domain may be used, directly or indirectly, for any purpose that is sexual or pornographic or that is against the statutory laws of any Nation" It's obvious that they don't enforce this as written, but wow... talk about a lawyer's nightmare.

pak 16y ago
IIRC, wildlife codes in the US have a similar provision. It's against the law in the US to violate wildlife laws of any other country.
- dfranke 16y ago
  Here's the law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sec_16_00003372----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sec_16_0... "It is unlawful for any person... to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce... any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law" So you're correct, and it's a badly-written law, but I think any reasonable judge would interpret it as being restricted to violations of foreign laws committed on that country's soil or waters. If Elbonia passes a law against stepping on ants, and you squash one on the sidewalk outside your house in the US, I don't think you're in jeopardy from this. In the case of the .IO domain regulations, a similar interpretation doesn't make any sense. Packets don't go through customs.
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    Right, but it does mean that if any law was broken anywhere in the chain from procurement to you buying it, you're guilty of breaking US law. A truck driver was speeding on a road in Elbonia while delivering Elbonian packing rat pelts for the leather that eventually became the couch you purchased on Amazon and had delivered? You're guilty. With laws like these, there's just no way you can know how many times you've broken the law this week.
    - dfranke 16y ago
      In this particular case, they have some decent mens rea protections. You're only criminally liable if you "know" that a law was broken, and only civilly liable if "in the exercise of due care [you] should know". Your broader point stands, of course.

by dfranke 16y ago

pak 16y ago

IIRC, wildlife codes in the US have a similar provision. It's against the law in the US to violate wildlife laws of any other country.

dfranke 16y ago
Here's the law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sec_16_00003372----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode16/usc_sec_16_0... "It is unlawful for any person... to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce... any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law" So you're correct, and it's a badly-written law, but I think any reasonable judge would interpret it as being restricted to violations of foreign laws committed on that country's soil or waters. If Elbonia passes a law against stepping on ants, and you squash one on the sidewalk outside your house in the US, I don't think you're in jeopardy from this. In the case of the .IO domain regulations, a similar interpretation doesn't make any sense. Packets don't go through customs.
- randallsquared 16y ago
  Right, but it does mean that if any law was broken anywhere in the chain from procurement to you buying it, you're guilty of breaking US law. A truck driver was speeding on a road in Elbonia while delivering Elbonian packing rat pelts for the leather that eventually became the couch you purchased on Amazon and had delivered? You're guilty. With laws like these, there's just no way you can know how many times you've broken the law this week.
  - dfranke 16y ago
    In this particular case, they have some decent mens rea protections. You're only criminally liable if you "know" that a law was broken, and only civilly liable if "in the exercise of due care [you] should know". Your broader point stands, of course.