3 ms·

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

by 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.

by avar 7y ago

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.