6 ms·

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

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.
        dannyw 5y ago
        The world has changed quite a bit. Sending information IS doing business these days, the world is digital.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    Unusual, no. Unjust, yes, and impractical besides. If (unlike me) you accept the legal fiction that a country's government "owns" everything within its self-proclaimed official borders, with all the corresponding rights of a property owner within that domain, then they can either block the communication at the border or impose requirements on those living within, provided that anyone who doesn't care to agree to those rules is free to leave without further penalty. In any case, their jurisdiction does not extend to any party (or parties) to the communication outside their physical borders.
    - scott_w 5y ago
      It’s unjust for a government to regulate what enters its borders from another country? So you’re suggesting that the U.K. should allow assault rifles to be sold from the USA, in spite of the fact they’re outright illegal to own inside the borders of the U.K. Why is it unjust when literally the entire U.K. population is in support of this position?
      - nybble41 5y ago
        > Why is it unjust when literally the entire U.K. population is in support of this position? Obviously not "literally the entire U.K. population" if someone in the U.K. isn't following the rule. This is a complex subject and I'm not going to get into it here, but the Cliff's Notes version is basically that the U.K. government is not a party to this transaction, is not harmed by it, and does not represent (as in: having a formal, revocable agent/principal relationship with) anyone who is either a party to the transaction or harmed by it, and thus has no standing to interfere. The justice or injustice of the matter is unaffected by whether the government's interference would be popular.
        scott_w 5y ago
        Put simply: your logic is insane and no government adopts it, for good reason. Longer version: governments adopt rules based on what works for them and their population. This includes rules that govern what can and can’t be sold in a business transaction. This is a principle as old as government itself. It makes sense that governments then apply these rules to things going in and out of its borders. It would be nuts to ban the sale of guns inside a country but allow them to be sold into the country, for example.
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.

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.
        dannyw 5y ago
        The world has changed quite a bit. Sending information IS doing business these days, the world is digital.
- nybble41 5y ago
  Unusual, no. Unjust, yes, and impractical besides. If (unlike me) you accept the legal fiction that a country's government "owns" everything within its self-proclaimed official borders, with all the corresponding rights of a property owner within that domain, then they can either block the communication at the border or impose requirements on those living within, provided that anyone who doesn't care to agree to those rules is free to leave without further penalty. In any case, their jurisdiction does not extend to any party (or parties) to the communication outside their physical borders.
  - scott_w 5y ago
    It’s unjust for a government to regulate what enters its borders from another country? So you’re suggesting that the U.K. should allow assault rifles to be sold from the USA, in spite of the fact they’re outright illegal to own inside the borders of the U.K. Why is it unjust when literally the entire U.K. population is in support of this position?
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > Why is it unjust when literally the entire U.K. population is in support of this position? Obviously not "literally the entire U.K. population" if someone in the U.K. isn't following the rule. This is a complex subject and I'm not going to get into it here, but the Cliff's Notes version is basically that the U.K. government is not a party to this transaction, is not harmed by it, and does not represent (as in: having a formal, revocable agent/principal relationship with) anyone who is either a party to the transaction or harmed by it, and thus has no standing to interfere. The justice or injustice of the matter is unaffected by whether the government's interference would be popular.
      - scott_w 5y ago
        Put simply: your logic is insane and no government adopts it, for good reason. Longer version: governments adopt rules based on what works for them and their population. This includes rules that govern what can and can’t be sold in a business transaction. This is a principle as old as government itself. It makes sense that governments then apply these rules to things going in and out of its borders. It would be nuts to ban the sale of guns inside a country but allow them to be sold into the country, for example.

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.