6 ms·

Following your hypothetical, which countries don't have laws for theft? Yes, the person should be allowed to get away with it, because the sovereignty of that

Following your hypothetical, which countries don't have laws for theft? Yes, the person should be allowed to get away with it, because the sovereignty of that country is important. Should every country apply their laws globally, or just the US...?

laumars 7y ago
I'm not a fan of countries who apply their laws globally but I don't think that is the case with the GP's hypothetical because the server is hosted in that country - thus that is literally where the crime was committed. You may not be physically present in the same location as the server in the GP's hypothetical but the crime you committed was within the territory of that particular country. To me, the equivalent is flying over to the country, committing a crime, then flying back before the crime had been detected and using that as a defence for why you shouldn't be extradited. That's just my opinion though. I do agree that the age of the internet has made the issue of legal jurisdictions a murky one.
- avar 7y ago
  The Internet hasn't made any of this murky. It's the exact same thing you can do with the postal system, for which we have hundreds of years of precedence. If a US citizen in the 1960s sent a leaflet containing some thought crime to the Soviet Union should the US be under any obligation to extradite that person to the USSR? By communicating with a computer in another country you're just sending information across the high-tech equivalent of the postal system. It's up to the receiving country how strict they're going to be in auditing information crossing their borders.
  - onion2k 7y ago
    If a US citizen in the 1960s sent a leaflet containing some thought crime to the Soviet Union should the US be under any obligation to extradite that person to the USSR? Interesting example, and as I understand it, the USSR would have considered it a crime and would have requested extradition. That is their right as a sovereign nation, and it's the reason why extradition treaties exist. That's kind of the point I was making - countries get to decide what crimes have taken place within their borders, and extradition treaties are the way we decide whether or not we move people to where they need be in order to answer for their actions. Geography has never really been a way of avoiding prosecution (but using the lack of extradition treaties between rival nations absolutely has).
  - foldr 7y ago
    >If a US citizen in the 1960s sent a leaflet containing some thought crime to the Soviet Union should the US be under any obligation to extradite that person to the USSR? Only if (a) an extradition treaty between the two countries existed and (b) the actions of the US citizen were a crime in the US as well as in the USSR. In general, you can only be extradited for something that's a crime in the country you're being extradited from.
cm2187 7y ago
He is being extradited precisely because what he did is also a crime under UK law. You typically can’t be extradited if the offense you committed isn’t a crime locally (like homosexuality).
- kace91 7y ago
  I'm not sure that's entirely fair, as it doesn't address the posible disparity of sentencing for an existing crime. A specific action punishable by a year in prison in my home country might be punished with a decade in another; the conditions of my home country's prison might not be the same as in a foreign country, etc. If I had to serve a one year sentence where I live for something I consider moral I wouldn't be too bothered (not that I'd welcome it of course), but serving a year in an American prison is a terrifying thought.
  - LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
    That year can be indefinatly long, if the warden finds you guilty of assaulting his office furniture with your teeth.
sumedh 7y ago
> Should every country apply their laws globally, or just the US...? Not every country has the power to apply their laws globally, the US can.
- Intermernet 7y ago
  That answers "can", not "should". Big difference.
  - sumedh 7y ago
    Well if every country had the power they would do it, its not a question if they should do it or not.

laumars 7y ago

I'm not a fan of countries who apply their laws globally but I don't think that is the case with the GP's hypothetical because the server is hosted in that country - thus that is literally where the crime was committed. You may not be physically present in the same location as the server in the GP's hypothetical but the crime you committed was within the territory of that particular country. To me, the equivalent is flying over to the country, committing a crime, then flying back before the crime had been detected and using that as a defence for why you shouldn't be extradited. That's just my opinion though. I do agree that the age of the internet has made the issue of legal jurisdictions a murky one.

avar 7y ago
The Internet hasn't made any of this murky. It's the exact same thing you can do with the postal system, for which we have hundreds of years of precedence. If a US citizen in the 1960s sent a leaflet containing some thought crime to the Soviet Union should the US be under any obligation to extradite that person to the USSR? By communicating with a computer in another country you're just sending information across the high-tech equivalent of the postal system. It's up to the receiving country how strict they're going to be in auditing information crossing their borders.
- onion2k 7y ago
  If a US citizen in the 1960s sent a leaflet containing some thought crime to the Soviet Union should the US be under any obligation to extradite that person to the USSR? Interesting example, and as I understand it, the USSR would have considered it a crime and would have requested extradition. That is their right as a sovereign nation, and it's the reason why extradition treaties exist. That's kind of the point I was making - countries get to decide what crimes have taken place within their borders, and extradition treaties are the way we decide whether or not we move people to where they need be in order to answer for their actions. Geography has never really been a way of avoiding prosecution (but using the lack of extradition treaties between rival nations absolutely has).
- foldr 7y ago
  >If a US citizen in the 1960s sent a leaflet containing some thought crime to the Soviet Union should the US be under any obligation to extradite that person to the USSR? Only if (a) an extradition treaty between the two countries existed and (b) the actions of the US citizen were a crime in the US as well as in the USSR. In general, you can only be extradited for something that's a crime in the country you're being extradited from.

cm2187 7y ago

He is being extradited precisely because what he did is also a crime under UK law. You typically can’t be extradited if the offense you committed isn’t a crime locally (like homosexuality).

kace91 7y ago
I'm not sure that's entirely fair, as it doesn't address the posible disparity of sentencing for an existing crime. A specific action punishable by a year in prison in my home country might be punished with a decade in another; the conditions of my home country's prison might not be the same as in a foreign country, etc. If I had to serve a one year sentence where I live for something I consider moral I wouldn't be too bothered (not that I'd welcome it of course), but serving a year in an American prison is a terrifying thought.
- LifeLiverTransp 7y ago
  That year can be indefinatly long, if the warden finds you guilty of assaulting his office furniture with your teeth.

sumedh 7y ago

> Should every country apply their laws globally, or just the US...? Not every country has the power to apply their laws globally, the US can.

Intermernet 7y ago
That answers "can", not "should". Big difference.
- sumedh 7y ago
  Well if every country had the power they would do it, its not a question if they should do it or not.