6 ms·

> 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 communi

> 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.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > This is not about “data” moving over borders. This is about services being provided from one country to another. Services which involve nothing but data, and thus still fall under the category of "data moving over borders". And, consequently, freedom of speech.
      - scott_w 5y ago
        No service involves “nothing but data.” This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it’s governing the rules of business transactions between two entities across borders. Stop throwing out spurious terms to try and cloud the debate.
        wyager 5y ago
        > No service involves “nothing but data.” May I introduce you to services such as Wikipedia.com and news.ycombinator.com?
        scott_w 5y ago
        Neither of those are just data. One provides information about topics of interest that you can edit, one provides a forum through you can interact with other people.
        nybble41 5y ago
        > information about topics of interest that you can edit Which is literally just data. > a forum through you can interact with other people Which is just a means of exchanging data. What is missing in both cases is any transportation of people or material across the border.
- wyager 5y ago
  Your model is nonsense - physical goods are not the same as digital goods. Regardless of whether or not your model actually makes sense, an inevitable consequence of your model is that the internet will become siloed at a national level. It sounds like you’re fine with that though.
  - scott_w 5y ago
    They’re not the same but they don’t need to be. It’s not my model, it’s just the way the world has always worked.
    - wyager 5y ago
      Show me a company that ever got sued, indicted, or fined by a foreign country for sending internet packets to that country, with no other business presence in the country, before 2010.
      - scott_w 5y ago
        Not a company but USA vs Gary McKinnon 2002.

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.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > This is not about “data” moving over borders. This is about services being provided from one country to another. Services which involve nothing but data, and thus still fall under the category of "data moving over borders". And, consequently, freedom of speech.
    - scott_w 5y ago
      No service involves “nothing but data.” This has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it’s governing the rules of business transactions between two entities across borders. Stop throwing out spurious terms to try and cloud the debate.
      - wyager 5y ago
        > No service involves “nothing but data.” May I introduce you to services such as Wikipedia.com and news.ycombinator.com?
        scott_w 5y ago
        Neither of those are just data. One provides information about topics of interest that you can edit, one provides a forum through you can interact with other people.
        nybble41 5y ago
        > information about topics of interest that you can edit Which is literally just data. > a forum through you can interact with other people Which is just a means of exchanging data. What is missing in both cases is any transportation of people or material across the border.
wyager 5y ago
Your model is nonsense - physical goods are not the same as digital goods. Regardless of whether or not your model actually makes sense, an inevitable consequence of your model is that the internet will become siloed at a national level. It sounds like you’re fine with that though.
- scott_w 5y ago
  They’re not the same but they don’t need to be. It’s not my model, it’s just the way the world has always worked.
  - wyager 5y ago
    Show me a company that ever got sued, indicted, or fined by a foreign country for sending internet packets to that country, with no other business presence in the country, before 2010.
    - scott_w 5y ago
      Not a company but USA vs Gary McKinnon 2002.