5 ms·

Just reading the headline leads me to the immediate reaction: Who cares about a U.S. law outside of US jurisdiction? If the U.S. wants other countries to foll

by Tepix 6y ago

Just reading the headline leads me to the immediate reaction: Who cares about a U.S. law outside of US jurisdiction? If the U.S. wants other countries to follow the same rules they need to make international treaties like the outer space treaty from 1967. That requires actual diplomacy of course.

saberdancer 6y ago
No one cares, but US is probably closest to landing on the moon. In 20 years we might have private companies flying to the moon, this type of law will prohibit someone from taking the footprint to bring it back to Earth.
LatteLazy 6y ago
Better still, it applies only to companies and only to companies working with Nasa.
rendall 6y ago
> Who cares about a U.S. law outside of US jurisdiction? Alas, Julian Assange for one, as an Australian citizen, indicted for breaking a US law while not in the US. The recent UK court decision not to extradite him to the US nevertheless in no way disputes US standing nor jurisdiction, and he remains in custody while the US appeals. So, we're all living in America.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  The UK should just get it over with and become a US state.
  - avianlyric 6y ago
    Please don’t say things like that. Someone might get the bright idea to put it on a referendum...
    - ben_w 6y ago
      If I had to guess, I’d expect such a referendum to return a “join America” result and then for almost everyone to be surprised that doing so means (1) losing the Queen, (2) losing the Pound, and (3) losing essentially all gun restrictions.
      - arethuza 6y ago
        Wouldn't becoming part of Canada technically fulfil the "join America" goal and allow the Queen to be kept?
        ben_w 6y ago
        “America” is often shorthand for “USA”, and @Daho0n said “US state”
        arethuza 6y ago
        If it was a UK referendum it would simply say "America" and leave it to after to work out what that actually meant! ;-) [Edit: I can just imagine the slogan of "America means America"]
      - mellosouls 6y ago
        No, obviously our Queen would still supersede the President, and that privilege would be graciously extended to the other states again.
      - vaduz 6y ago
        ... (4) Not actually becoming a US state Not being flippant here - there are territories already within the USA that for various reasons cannot become a "US state".
      - approxim8ion 6y ago
        >losing the Queen Might be the only good thing to come of it.
- austhrow743 6y ago
  Hew Raymond Griffiths is an even better example. He actually got extradited and convicted. Australian court agreed to treat his activity as having taken place within US jurisdiction despite him never leaving Australia.
- tpush 6y ago
  There's nothing unusual about this. Obviously you don't have to physically be in a country to commit a crime in that country. If I'm a German citizen residing in France hacking UK hospitals, the UK very obviously would want brought to justice, which both France and Germany would happily agree to in this case, I'd imagine.
  - richrichardsson 6y ago
    An unfortunate set of choices you made for the countries there, replace the UK with another EU country and it would stand. > As things stand at the time of writing, following the UK’s departure from the EU [...], the UK will no longer be part of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system. This means that, unless and until other arrangements are agreed, future extradition requests with European states will be governed, as with many countries outside the EU, by the 1957 Convention on Extradition, leading to increased costs, delay and complexity in extradition proceedings. Certain EU states already do not extradite their citizens to countries outside the EU. Three EU states – Germany, Austria and Slovenia – have already announced that they may even refuse to surrender their respective nationals to the UK pursuant to an EAW during the transition period.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    Well, if the defense is that Assange simply received and published information, then that analogy doesn't exactly fit.
- DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  they even use copyright law to hunt and extradite you if they can, Kim Schmitz (aka dotkom) is a good example of what they can do even if you've never set foot in their country. Not to mention those imprisoned and tortured on a US black site or Gitmo (or your friendly neighborhood concentration camp run by ICE).
kitd 6y ago
The article points this out. This particular law only relates to companies working with NASA on lunar projects to protect American landing sites. It can be seen as a "small step" (pun intended) to creating something larger like the World Heritage Convention, via diplomacy as you say.
- HourglassFR 6y ago
  On the contrary, this is a small step towards putting the moon surface under US control. It is pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that the end goal is to disregard the entire "common heritage of humanity" narative. That was all fine and dandy when we all knew the moon was too remote to do anything about it. Now that technology allows to at least entertain the idea of exploiting the moon as a ressource, it is time for empires to drip their toes to test the waters… I cannnot believe that those types of claim and the advance of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program is entirely a coincidence. Of course, the situation will slowing evolve for decades before anything concrete comes out of it. And I do think the "common heritage" claim, even if doomed to fail eventually, tend to slow down the conquest by national powers. The situation in Antarctica is illuminating in this regard.
7952 6y ago
This is hardly an unusual concept on earth. You are still subject to the laws of your flag nation when sailing in international waters. Antarctica is not officially owned by anyone but researchers may still be subject to laws at home.
illustriousbear 6y ago
You should care. Many countries exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction laws and go after people who break them, this includes the US. If they can reach you, they will prosecute you if they want. Normally this applies to the states own citizens but they will target foreign citizens who have hurt the state (see Assange). Spying, poaching, abuse of children and war crimes are where some of these extraterritorial laws are exercised.
nabla9 6y ago
https://www.state.gov/outer-space-treaty https://www.state.gov/outer-space-treaty
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Any party that wants to coöperate with U.S.A. companies on extraterrastial activities must agree to not tarnish those footsteps, and U.S.A. companies are required by law to require those agreements. — that is how they enforce it.

by Tepix 6y ago

saberdancer 6y ago

No one cares, but US is probably closest to landing on the moon. In 20 years we might have private companies flying to the moon, this type of law will prohibit someone from taking the footprint to bring it back to Earth.

LatteLazy 6y ago

Better still, it applies only to companies and only to companies working with Nasa.

rendall 6y ago

> Who cares about a U.S. law outside of US jurisdiction? Alas, Julian Assange for one, as an Australian citizen, indicted for breaking a US law while not in the US. The recent UK court decision not to extradite him to the US nevertheless in no way disputes US standing nor jurisdiction, and he remains in custody while the US appeals. So, we're all living in America.

Daho0n 6y ago
The UK should just get it over with and become a US state.
- avianlyric 6y ago
  Please don’t say things like that. Someone might get the bright idea to put it on a referendum...
  - ben_w 6y ago
    If I had to guess, I’d expect such a referendum to return a “join America” result and then for almost everyone to be surprised that doing so means (1) losing the Queen, (2) losing the Pound, and (3) losing essentially all gun restrictions.
    - arethuza 6y ago
      Wouldn't becoming part of Canada technically fulfil the "join America" goal and allow the Queen to be kept?
      - ben_w 6y ago
        “America” is often shorthand for “USA”, and @Daho0n said “US state”
        arethuza 6y ago
        If it was a UK referendum it would simply say "America" and leave it to after to work out what that actually meant! ;-) [Edit: I can just imagine the slogan of "America means America"]
    - mellosouls 6y ago
      No, obviously our Queen would still supersede the President, and that privilege would be graciously extended to the other states again.
    - vaduz 6y ago
      ... (4) Not actually becoming a US state Not being flippant here - there are territories already within the USA that for various reasons cannot become a "US state".
    - approxim8ion 6y ago
      >losing the Queen Might be the only good thing to come of it.
austhrow743 6y ago
Hew Raymond Griffiths is an even better example. He actually got extradited and convicted. Australian court agreed to treat his activity as having taken place within US jurisdiction despite him never leaving Australia.
tpush 6y ago
There's nothing unusual about this. Obviously you don't have to physically be in a country to commit a crime in that country. If I'm a German citizen residing in France hacking UK hospitals, the UK very obviously would want brought to justice, which both France and Germany would happily agree to in this case, I'd imagine.
- richrichardsson 6y ago
  An unfortunate set of choices you made for the countries there, replace the UK with another EU country and it would stand. > As things stand at the time of writing, following the UK’s departure from the EU [...], the UK will no longer be part of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) system. This means that, unless and until other arrangements are agreed, future extradition requests with European states will be governed, as with many countries outside the EU, by the 1957 Convention on Extradition, leading to increased costs, delay and complexity in extradition proceedings. Certain EU states already do not extradite their citizens to countries outside the EU. Three EU states – Germany, Austria and Slovenia – have already announced that they may even refuse to surrender their respective nationals to the UK pursuant to an EAW during the transition period.
- totalZero 6y ago
  Well, if the defense is that Assange simply received and published information, then that analogy doesn't exactly fit.
DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
they even use copyright law to hunt and extradite you if they can, Kim Schmitz (aka dotkom) is a good example of what they can do even if you've never set foot in their country. Not to mention those imprisoned and tortured on a US black site or Gitmo (or your friendly neighborhood concentration camp run by ICE).

kitd 6y ago

The article points this out. This particular law only relates to companies working with NASA on lunar projects to protect American landing sites. It can be seen as a "small step" (pun intended) to creating something larger like the World Heritage Convention, via diplomacy as you say.

HourglassFR 6y ago
On the contrary, this is a small step towards putting the moon surface under US control. It is pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that the end goal is to disregard the entire "common heritage of humanity" narative. That was all fine and dandy when we all knew the moon was too remote to do anything about it. Now that technology allows to at least entertain the idea of exploiting the moon as a ressource, it is time for empires to drip their toes to test the waters… I cannnot believe that those types of claim and the advance of the Chinese Lunar Exploration Program is entirely a coincidence. Of course, the situation will slowing evolve for decades before anything concrete comes out of it. And I do think the "common heritage" claim, even if doomed to fail eventually, tend to slow down the conquest by national powers. The situation in Antarctica is illuminating in this regard.

7952 6y ago

This is hardly an unusual concept on earth. You are still subject to the laws of your flag nation when sailing in international waters. Antarctica is not officially owned by anyone but researchers may still be subject to laws at home.

illustriousbear 6y ago

You should care. Many countries exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction laws and go after people who break them, this includes the US. If they can reach you, they will prosecute you if they want. Normally this applies to the states own citizens but they will target foreign citizens who have hurt the state (see Assange). Spying, poaching, abuse of children and war crimes are where some of these extraterritorial laws are exercised.

nabla9 6y ago

https://www.state.gov/outer-space-treaty https://www.state.gov/outer-space-treaty

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

Any party that wants to coöperate with U.S.A. companies on extraterrastial activities must agree to not tarnish those footsteps, and U.S.A. companies are required by law to require those agreements. — that is how they enforce it.