6 ms·
If he'd travelled to the USA and committed a crime, that would be one thing. But he's a British citizen in Britian. He's not subject to US laws, he's subject
by nirvana 15y ago
If he'd travelled to the USA and committed a crime, that would be one thing.
But he's a British citizen in Britian. He's not subject to US laws, he's subject to British laws.
If the British government can't be bothered to protect its citizens against this kind of overreach, isn't the british government failing at the most basic purpose of a government-- to protect people's rights?
The idea that a .NET or .COM domain name subjects you to US laws is asinine beyond belief. The only degree to which this is true is domain disputes or the management of that domain name. Nothing else.
A big part of the problem here is that US judges have become errand boys for the federal government, and are inclined to let federal prosecutors get away with asinine arguments like the claim that ".COM means US presence.".
- chimeracoder 15y ago> The idea that a .NET or .COM domain name subjects you to US laws is asinine beyond belief. The only degree to which this is true is domain disputes or the management of that domain name. Nothing else. Especially since .com is supposed to be reserved for international use, whereas .us is intended for US-based (or US-targeted) companies. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two companies that ever used .us: Delicious and Grouphug (and the former only because of the creative spelling).
- Go123 15y agoI think you mean the problem is that prosecutors have become errand boys for the entertainment media industry (and also the software industry, e.g. Adobe and MS). Copyright is meant to be enforced by the copyright holder, i.e., by private industry, not by the federal government. The government is enforcing private rights. They are meddling in the business world.
- jcampbell1 15y agoI don't mean to be rude, but how is this the top voted comment? Extradition exists for a reason, and this comment lacks a serious depth of thinking and belongs on reddit. Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition Form arguments based on the restrictions outlined.
- chc 15y agoHis argument is based around jurisdiction, which is one of the restrictions outlined.
- jcampbell1 15y agoAssume for a moment, that he had stolen money from American Paypal accounts through phishing. Does the argument still make sense? I think is does not. The argument is visceral, nothing more. She makes a straw man argument about '.com' and '.net' that is completely irrelevant, but attracts the pitchforks and fools. How does the original comment have anything to do with jurisdiction?
- cynicalkane 15y agoI think part of the grandparent posters's complaint is that nirvana's claim seems more like wishful thinking on what nirvana wants the law to be, rather than how it works in practice. The comments below discuss the issues surrounding this extradition, while the top comment is relatively content-free. I'm guessing about this, of course, but if that's what motivated his post I'm inclined to agree.
- tobylane 15y agoThe extradition treaty is widely thought to be very biased to the USA, legal wording of [1]. The USA DA's office can withhold evidence, and only need to provide reasonable suspicion, but CPS need to provide probable cause. It's difficult to tell if this law will ever be reversed, maybe it will have to wait for the 'special relationship' to weaken. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003