5 ms·

This concept is a recent legal development. It’s not obviously correct. Whether or not you think it’s correct, the obvious and inevitable conclusion is that th

by wyager 5y ago

This concept is a recent legal development. It’s not obviously correct. Whether or not you think it’s correct, the obvious and inevitable conclusion is that the web will be siloed off and cease to be a global network.

bruce343434 5y ago
True, and we could already see this with the great firewall of China and the intranet of North Korea. And today, there's many American sites which serve me a 451 unavailable due to legal reasons, or just a permanent redirect to some "we care about our European visitors" weasel words.
- sjtindell 5y ago
  Gambling sites and cryptocurrency exchanges come to mind as region locked services.
scott_w 5y ago
It’s really not. The concept of “your house, your rules” can be found in ancient Roman texts. Being a foreigner didn’t suddenly exempt you from the laws of the land.
- wyager 5y ago
  The difference is that sending a packet to someone's house probably isn't the same as physically being inside their house.
  - scott_w 5y ago
    You think it’s unusual for a government to limit or put stipulations on what you can send into their country?
    - wyager 5y ago
      I don't care if it's "unusual" or not - I'm just pointing out that the legal model you're espousing will inevitably result in a siloed internet. Don't shoot the messenger.
      - scott_w 5y ago
        I’m not espousing a legal model at all. I’m just pointing out that literally no government in history has ever said “you can send whatever you want into our country with no restrictions.”
        wyager 5y ago
        That’s how the internet worked in most countries until recently. In any case, once again it’s irrelevant. Whatever your justification for it, this behavior will lead to internet siloization.
        scott_w 5y ago
        You’re confusing the Internet with services that use the Internet to do business. The former is just a delivery mechanism for the latter, which is what’s being regulated. Plenty of countries require you to register for sales tax once you establish a presence in their country, whether you sell goods or services. No business operating in this environment thinks it’s unreasonable to do so. Once again “their house, their rules.”
        wyager 5y ago
        > You’re confusing the Internet with services that use the Internet to do business. No, you are confusing sending information with “doing business”.
        scott_w 5y ago
        Laws don’t give a damn about data packets: they’re interested in the real world outcomes which are the services those packets enable. If you can’t understand this then I’m not wasting any more time explaining the basics of real life to you.
- nybble41 5y ago
  > your house, your rules You're not in their "house". You're just communicating with someone who is. If some foreign government has a problem with that communication they should take it up with the party who is physically within their jurisdiction—not that I believe they have any just standing there either.
  - scott_w 5y ago
    You’re trying to do business in another country with different rules. If you want to sell food into the EU, you need to comply with their food safety regulations. Why does this magically change when someone utters the words “the internet?”
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > You’re trying to do business in another country with different rules. You are not doing business in another country. First, there may not be any "business" involved at all. More importantly, however, you are not in the other country. The other person is. If physical property is involved then someone—not necessarily you—is going to need to worry about import/export regulations when moving it across the border. When it comes to virtual services and websites, however, those concerns rooted in physical transportation do not apply. > Why does this magically change when someone utters the words “the internet?” It makes no difference whether you're communicating over the Internet or by phone or two-way radio or postal mail or carrier pigeon, or by shouting to each other across the border. So long as you're only exchanging data and not physical goods they can implement technical measures to block the communication at the border, or order their own residents not to communicate with you—in which case I would advise them to make arrangements leave the country posthaste—but you yourself remain outside their jurisdiction.
      - scott_w 5y ago
        This is not about “data” moving over borders. This is about services being provided from one country to another. This is something governments already regulate within their borders (and have for centuries). This is something that’s already heavily regulated for other industries e.g. financial services. There’s nothing novel about the GDPR in that aspect.

by wyager 5y ago

bruce343434 5y ago

True, and we could already see this with the great firewall of China and the intranet of North Korea. And today, there's many American sites which serve me a 451 unavailable due to legal reasons, or just a permanent redirect to some "we care about our European visitors" weasel words.

sjtindell 5y ago
Gambling sites and cryptocurrency exchanges come to mind as region locked services.

scott_w 5y ago

It’s really not. The concept of “your house, your rules” can be found in ancient Roman texts. Being a foreigner didn’t suddenly exempt you from the laws of the land.

wyager 5y ago
The difference is that sending a packet to someone's house probably isn't the same as physically being inside their house.
- scott_w 5y ago
  You think it’s unusual for a government to limit or put stipulations on what you can send into their country?
  - wyager 5y ago
    I don't care if it's "unusual" or not - I'm just pointing out that the legal model you're espousing will inevitably result in a siloed internet. Don't shoot the messenger.
    - scott_w 5y ago
      I’m not espousing a legal model at all. I’m just pointing out that literally no government in history has ever said “you can send whatever you want into our country with no restrictions.”
      - wyager 5y ago
        That’s how the internet worked in most countries until recently. In any case, once again it’s irrelevant. Whatever your justification for it, this behavior will lead to internet siloization.
        scott_w 5y ago
        You’re confusing the Internet with services that use the Internet to do business. The former is just a delivery mechanism for the latter, which is what’s being regulated. Plenty of countries require you to register for sales tax once you establish a presence in their country, whether you sell goods or services. No business operating in this environment thinks it’s unreasonable to do so. Once again “their house, their rules.”
        wyager 5y ago
        > You’re confusing the Internet with services that use the Internet to do business. No, you are confusing sending information with “doing business”.
        scott_w 5y ago
        Laws don’t give a damn about data packets: they’re interested in the real world outcomes which are the services those packets enable. If you can’t understand this then I’m not wasting any more time explaining the basics of real life to you.
nybble41 5y ago
> your house, your rules You're not in their "house". You're just communicating with someone who is. If some foreign government has a problem with that communication they should take it up with the party who is physically within their jurisdiction—not that I believe they have any just standing there either.
- scott_w 5y ago
  You’re trying to do business in another country with different rules. If you want to sell food into the EU, you need to comply with their food safety regulations. Why does this magically change when someone utters the words “the internet?”
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > You’re trying to do business in another country with different rules. You are not doing business in another country. First, there may not be any "business" involved at all. More importantly, however, you are not in the other country. The other person is. If physical property is involved then someone—not necessarily you—is going to need to worry about import/export regulations when moving it across the border. When it comes to virtual services and websites, however, those concerns rooted in physical transportation do not apply. > Why does this magically change when someone utters the words “the internet?” It makes no difference whether you're communicating over the Internet or by phone or two-way radio or postal mail or carrier pigeon, or by shouting to each other across the border. So long as you're only exchanging data and not physical goods they can implement technical measures to block the communication at the border, or order their own residents not to communicate with you—in which case I would advise them to make arrangements leave the country posthaste—but you yourself remain outside their jurisdiction.
    - scott_w 5y ago
      This is not about “data” moving over borders. This is about services being provided from one country to another. This is something governments already regulate within their borders (and have for centuries). This is something that’s already heavily regulated for other industries e.g. financial services. There’s nothing novel about the GDPR in that aspect.