7 ms·
From the context, (CFAA, a US law) "VPN to get access to content that is otherwise blocked in your country through an IP Block" wouldn't be referring to using a
by FateOfNations 5y ago
From the context, (CFAA, a US law) "VPN to get access to content that is otherwise blocked in your country through an IP Block" wouldn't be referring to using a VPN to bypass blocks imposed by "your local government" or censorship-related issues, but rather circumventing blocks imposed by US-based content providers.
Hypothetical scenario: User outside the United States uses a VPN to access US Netflix content. In doing so, have circumvented Netflix access control mechanism and are accessing the Netflix's computer systems in an unauthorized manner. Unauthorized access to computer systems is a violation of the CFAA. Accordingly, the foreign user is potentially liable for felony criminal charges in the US, just the same as they had "hacked" any other computer system in the US.
- paul_f 5y agoFelony obstruction of Netflix's business model? :-)
- lugged 5y agoRead OP quote again, parent missed the part that shows this is what they are talking about. >> If the court follows this argument the ... Op is referring to precedent potentially being set, but I'm not sure it would actually apply in practice. (Different laws)
- matheusmoreira 5y ago> the foreign user is potentially liable for felony criminal charges in the US US law does not apply to non-US citizens. How could a foreigner possibly be liable for anything?
- mellavora 5y agoThe F it doesn't. You are correct that it can be nebulous to apply it to people not currently physically present in the US due to jurisdictional limitations, but there are numerous exceptions.
- popotamonga 5y agoWhat? Law applies to the country.
- jmcs 5y agoThe UK already deported one of their citizens to the US over hacking (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/jul/07/news.usnews https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/jul/07/news.usne...), so it depends on how much of a backbone your country has.
- jen20 5y agoThis particular case did not result in extradition - it was overturned several years later.
- falcolas 5y agoSo long as you don’t set foot on US soil, or piss off someone enough to get extradited. Being a foreigner is often enough to avoid the punishment, but it’s not enough to be exempt from the laws.
- matheusmoreira 5y agoWhat the hell? You're telling me some foreign national could actually be extradited to the US over VPN IP nonsense? As if this was as bad as drug trafficking? I just checked my country's laws. Looks like international drug trafficking is the only reason allowed for extradition. Good to see the people writing these things have some common sense.
- falcolas 5y agoIt's worth remembering that Mega's founder, Kim Dotcom, is still fighting off extradition attempts for Copyright infringement from New Zealand.
- Dracophoenix 5y agoHere's one example: https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-charges-greek-national-for-selling-insider-trading-subscriptions-in-the-dark-web/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-charges-greek-national-for-...
- OliverJones 5y agoCountry-based IP blocks at content providers (Netflix, other streaming services) relate to their content licensing. They may have purchased the rights to distribute the film in question in the US, but not in Spain, for example. Sure, information wants to be free. But films cost real money to create, and the streaming services have a duty to the people who provide their content. Just sayin'
- thomastjeffery 5y agoBetter hypothetical scenario: User inside the United States uses a VPN to access foreign Netflix content.