5 ms·

OTOH, people accessing the game through iframes may be in breach of the computer misuse act for unauthorised access to content.

kolbe 3y ago
Vigilante justice might morally be justice, but it's still illegal
jeroenhd 3y ago
And I'm sure the British courts will rule in the author's favour when the lawsuit is filed, but that doesn't make flashing other users legal. Then again, I doubt someone is going to file a police report, especially when the URL of the page would bring the reports to an entirely different web page in the first place.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  Why would the US extradite
  - rovr138 3y ago
    The point of extradition is surrendering a person to another jurisdiction to face criminal charges. Why?, because that's what a treaty is. Ultimately it depends on what he's charged with and if it's found they can be extradited for it...
  - jeroenhd 3y ago
    The lack of extradition doesn't prevent the British courts from operating. It's not like you can escape punishment by just avoiding physically going to court. If you refuse to show up, you'll probably lose by default. How much impact that has depends on the relationship between the websites owners and the UK, but extradition isn't strictly necessary.
    - sh34r 3y ago
      Look to the example of Russian intelligence officers being indicted by U.S. DOJ for an example that both proves and disproves your point. Governments do indict foreign nationals that can’t be extradited. They also don’t bother unless they’re a big enough fish to fry. Goatse doesn’t cut it. You have to do something like NotPetya to get a four-star cyber wanted level.
    - michaelmrose 3y ago
      On the contrary the expectation of committing very substantial and expensive resources with no expectations of any end result does in fact stop the criminal process from operating in the same way that the expectation of refusal stops me from booking a flight to New York and asking Scarlett Johansson for a date. This is probably why people have been grossing each other out since the internet existed but no American has been so prosecuted for mere offense. If you want a good preview of what trying to enforce UK law on US citizens looks like look no further than the New York Libel Terrorism Protection Act later passed federally as the "Speech Act" preventing US courts from enforcing British Libel judgements referring to you lot colloquially as "Libel Terrorists" https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/... Insofar as action purely in the UK well Europe is 10M sq miles the US 3.8M whereas the UK is a 94,000 sq mile island on the way to nothing else. If they want to commit at minimum thousands of dollars in resources they can at great expense reduce by 1 the potential tourists spending money on their island I suppose.

kolbe 3y ago

Vigilante justice might morally be justice, but it's still illegal

jeroenhd 3y ago

And I'm sure the British courts will rule in the author's favour when the lawsuit is filed, but that doesn't make flashing other users legal. Then again, I doubt someone is going to file a police report, especially when the URL of the page would bring the reports to an entirely different web page in the first place.

michaelmrose 3y ago
Why would the US extradite
- rovr138 3y ago
  The point of extradition is surrendering a person to another jurisdiction to face criminal charges. Why?, because that's what a treaty is. Ultimately it depends on what he's charged with and if it's found they can be extradited for it...
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  The lack of extradition doesn't prevent the British courts from operating. It's not like you can escape punishment by just avoiding physically going to court. If you refuse to show up, you'll probably lose by default. How much impact that has depends on the relationship between the websites owners and the UK, but extradition isn't strictly necessary.
  - sh34r 3y ago
    Look to the example of Russian intelligence officers being indicted by U.S. DOJ for an example that both proves and disproves your point. Governments do indict foreign nationals that can’t be extradited. They also don’t bother unless they’re a big enough fish to fry. Goatse doesn’t cut it. You have to do something like NotPetya to get a four-star cyber wanted level.
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    On the contrary the expectation of committing very substantial and expensive resources with no expectations of any end result does in fact stop the criminal process from operating in the same way that the expectation of refusal stops me from booking a flight to New York and asking Scarlett Johansson for a date. This is probably why people have been grossing each other out since the internet existed but no American has been so prosecuted for mere offense. If you want a good preview of what trying to enforce UK law on US citizens looks like look no further than the New York Libel Terrorism Protection Act later passed federally as the "Speech Act" preventing US courts from enforcing British Libel judgements referring to you lot colloquially as "Libel Terrorists" https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/... Insofar as action purely in the UK well Europe is 10M sq miles the US 3.8M whereas the UK is a 94,000 sq mile island on the way to nothing else. If they want to commit at minimum thousands of dollars in resources they can at great expense reduce by 1 the potential tourists spending money on their island I suppose.