4 ms·

Have you confirmed the physical location and applicable jurisdictions of the maintainers of those distros or why focus specifically on US law here? I know the

by 3np 4y ago

Have you confirmed the physical location and applicable jurisdictions of the maintainers of those distros or why focus specifically on US law here? I know the US is trying (and often getting away with) unilaterally setting rules on the global stage but let's try to not play along.

sidewndr46 4y ago
I can think of at least a few individuals who might support the idea that US jurisdiction is either the only jurisdiction that matters, or at least covers the 90% of the Earth at minimum. Let's see: 1. Kim DotCom 2. Julian Assange 3. Edward Snowden 4. Henry Kissinger 5. Meng Wanzhou The list goes on I imagine, those are just the notable ones from my lifetime.
- 3np 4y ago
  6/7/8: brokep, anakata, tiamo. It's still early to tell but we may have to add Aleksey Pertsev to this list :/ > 3. Edward Snowden U.S. citizen being hunted for acts committed on US soil so as terrible as prosecuting them is, I don't see how it's relevant here. Other than that, yes, my point is we should not be normalizing and shrugging this off as "the way things are". Individuals and businesses are doing right in taking this into their risk-calculations but that does not make it lawful or constitutional even when local governments or LE are complicit. Not everyone are as aware of this as you and I and comments like GP frame this in a deceptive way for those who aren't. If done deliberately and under certain other circumstances I'd even call it propaganda (not saying that's what GP is intending to do but one can both speak truth and have good intentions while still spreading propaganda).
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    Giving one counterexample is sufficient to refute a categorical rule. Additionally, the fact that the code in question is hosted on GitHub (U.S.), a site owned by Microsoft (U.S.), and specifically how it came to be in Debian (U.S.) (started by Ian Murdock (U.S.) and assets held by Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (U.S.)) makes the U.S. an appropriate counterexample. Russia (home of the author of the software in question, Stanislav Seletskiy) would also be an appropriate counterexample. Russia also criminalizes copyright infringement under some circumstances. Both the U.S. and Russia serve as counterexamples to the idea that an action that "violates the rights of the copyright holder" is therefore "not a crime." I was neither "deceptive" nor pushing "propaganda." Your anti-U.S. tirade and personal attacks on me are entirely off-topic.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - 3np 4y ago
      > Additionally, the fact that the code in question is hosted on GitHub (U.S.), a site owned by Microsoft (U.S.), and specifically how it came to be in Debian (U.S.) (started by Ian Murdock (U.S.) and assets held by Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (U.S.)) makes the U.S. an appropriate counterexample. That is indeed useful context and answers my question. My snark in the original still stands as it happens elsewhere on HN regularly. In some cases it may be an assumption on the commenter that anyone English-speaking is American, everything else is an exception and should be stated as such. It's obvious to see how that occurs spontaneously but it's not healthy or inclusive. Much like heteronormativity. Personal attacks? Tirade? Come on, I already explicitly mentioned I am not implying bad faith on your part. Neither am I saying you are deceptive, just that your original comment had a deceptive framing, intentional or not. Frankly I'm not sure "deceptive" is really the best word here but nothing better really comes up without starting to write paragraphs. But here we are. I don't have any beef with you or the US per se. I just want some autonomy and human rights for myself and others. Maybe even a fair and equal society. I am a firm believer that language plays a big part in shaping our view of reality, not only vice versa. I appreciate when others call me out in a similar way - we all have our blind spots.
      - torstenvl 4y ago
        > I just want some autonomy and human rights You're talking to Americans on an American website about how bad you think America is, and nobody is threatening to send your relatives to Xinjiang for it, so I feel pretty confident your human rights aren't being violated.
  - pseudalopex 4y ago
    > U.S. citizen being hunted for acts committed on US soil so as terrible as prosecuting them is, I don't see how it's relevant here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
- Paradigma11 4y ago
  @Meng Wanzhou. She lied to companies to get them to unwittingly commit crimes on US soil. Seems reasonable that this is a crime in the US. But many other did the same without any consequences so this might be a selective application of the law.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    She was detained in Canada.
    - Paradigma11 4y ago
      Yes, because there is an extradition treaty with Canada. The problem seems to me the unequal application of the law, since there are many companies that did the same and were not prosecuted. But the case itself seems pretty open and shut.
      - sidewndr46 4y ago
        I feel as though you are proving my point: US jurisdiction covers most of the world. I'll grant you China isn't going to extradite one of their own citizens to the US, but they'd probably extradite a European without hesitation.

by 3np 4y ago

sidewndr46 4y ago

I can think of at least a few individuals who might support the idea that US jurisdiction is either the only jurisdiction that matters, or at least covers the 90% of the Earth at minimum. Let's see: 1. Kim DotCom 2. Julian Assange 3. Edward Snowden 4. Henry Kissinger 5. Meng Wanzhou The list goes on I imagine, those are just the notable ones from my lifetime.

3np 4y ago
6/7/8: brokep, anakata, tiamo. It's still early to tell but we may have to add Aleksey Pertsev to this list :/ > 3. Edward Snowden U.S. citizen being hunted for acts committed on US soil so as terrible as prosecuting them is, I don't see how it's relevant here. Other than that, yes, my point is we should not be normalizing and shrugging this off as "the way things are". Individuals and businesses are doing right in taking this into their risk-calculations but that does not make it lawful or constitutional even when local governments or LE are complicit. Not everyone are as aware of this as you and I and comments like GP frame this in a deceptive way for those who aren't. If done deliberately and under certain other circumstances I'd even call it propaganda (not saying that's what GP is intending to do but one can both speak truth and have good intentions while still spreading propaganda).
- torstenvl 4y ago
  Giving one counterexample is sufficient to refute a categorical rule. Additionally, the fact that the code in question is hosted on GitHub (U.S.), a site owned by Microsoft (U.S.), and specifically how it came to be in Debian (U.S.) (started by Ian Murdock (U.S.) and assets held by Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (U.S.)) makes the U.S. an appropriate counterexample. Russia (home of the author of the software in question, Stanislav Seletskiy) would also be an appropriate counterexample. Russia also criminalizes copyright infringement under some circumstances. Both the U.S. and Russia serve as counterexamples to the idea that an action that "violates the rights of the copyright holder" is therefore "not a crime." I was neither "deceptive" nor pushing "propaganda." Your anti-U.S. tirade and personal attacks on me are entirely off-topic.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - 3np 4y ago
    > Additionally, the fact that the code in question is hosted on GitHub (U.S.), a site owned by Microsoft (U.S.), and specifically how it came to be in Debian (U.S.) (started by Ian Murdock (U.S.) and assets held by Software in the Public Interest, Inc. (U.S.)) makes the U.S. an appropriate counterexample. That is indeed useful context and answers my question. My snark in the original still stands as it happens elsewhere on HN regularly. In some cases it may be an assumption on the commenter that anyone English-speaking is American, everything else is an exception and should be stated as such. It's obvious to see how that occurs spontaneously but it's not healthy or inclusive. Much like heteronormativity. Personal attacks? Tirade? Come on, I already explicitly mentioned I am not implying bad faith on your part. Neither am I saying you are deceptive, just that your original comment had a deceptive framing, intentional or not. Frankly I'm not sure "deceptive" is really the best word here but nothing better really comes up without starting to write paragraphs. But here we are. I don't have any beef with you or the US per se. I just want some autonomy and human rights for myself and others. Maybe even a fair and equal society. I am a firm believer that language plays a big part in shaping our view of reality, not only vice versa. I appreciate when others call me out in a similar way - we all have our blind spots.
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      > I just want some autonomy and human rights You're talking to Americans on an American website about how bad you think America is, and nobody is threatening to send your relatives to Xinjiang for it, so I feel pretty confident your human rights aren't being violated.
- pseudalopex 4y ago
  > U.S. citizen being hunted for acts committed on US soil so as terrible as prosecuting them is, I don't see how it's relevant here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evo_Morales_grounding_incident
Paradigma11 4y ago
@Meng Wanzhou. She lied to companies to get them to unwittingly commit crimes on US soil. Seems reasonable that this is a crime in the US. But many other did the same without any consequences so this might be a selective application of the law.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  She was detained in Canada.
  - Paradigma11 4y ago
    Yes, because there is an extradition treaty with Canada. The problem seems to me the unequal application of the law, since there are many companies that did the same and were not prosecuted. But the case itself seems pretty open and shut.
    - sidewndr46 4y ago
      I feel as though you are proving my point: US jurisdiction covers most of the world. I'll grant you China isn't going to extradite one of their own citizens to the US, but they'd probably extradite a European without hesitation.