6 ms·

There is plenty of precedence for this, and I am about to fudge a bunch of details. The basic point is that the United Kingdom can make any law it sees fit to a

There is plenty of precedence for this, and I am about to fudge a bunch of details. The basic point is that the United Kingdom can make any law it sees fit to any place or person. Even though it may only exercise punitive issues once they arrival inside the physical jurisdiction. So the example I was taught, the UK can pass a law banning smoking in Paris, but may not arrest/fine until such criminal trespassers get off the ferry in UK. This means that the Sovereign power is omni-whatevers, unless you explicitly say otherwise eg The UK Legislated their way out of South Africa and Canada expilictly. If 4Chans money ever passes through a UK bank, I'm sure Ofcom will grab what they can. It's a very British shakedown.

jojobas 1y ago
This case is more like UK bans selling cigarettes and tries going after a Parisian tobacconist.
- beardyw 1y ago
  Yes if the Parisian tabaconist sells in the UK. What happens in France is a French concern.
  - jojobas 1y ago
    No, more like the Parisian tobacconist had the audacity to sell tobacco to some Brits without asking Ofcom.
    - tpoacher 1y ago
      yes, where said Brits were in Britain and the tobacco was shipped there.
      - Palmik 1y ago
        No, the tobacco was being served from France, the Brits used British pidgeon carriers to bring the tobacco to Britain.
  - ibejoeb 1y ago
    Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.
    - foobarian 1y ago
      Time to stand up Hadrian's Firewall!
    - awesome_dude 1y ago
      There was an Australian case, I'll look it up, but the relevant bit, the publishing of the web page happened on a computer in Australia, which they claimed (successfully) gave them jurisdiction
      - ibejoeb 1y ago
        But what does successfully mean? An Australian court can rule on it, but Australia is going to have to take it up with US State from there. Or send the navy, I guess...
    - fecal_henge 1y ago
      I'm nearly at the point of saying that a tobacco sales isn't the best analogy here.
      - ibejoeb 1y ago
        I could be milk, right? Or a sheet of paper. I'll concede that it's not terribly far fetched. If the french entity produced a good that is illegal in the UK put it in the post to be delivered to the UK, then we have something like an analog to producing HTML in one place and displaying elsewhere. However, the thing about sovereignty is that you don't have it if you can't enforce it.
    - tgv 1y ago
      They're not going to Paris, are they? 4chan brings their services into the UK. The US does the same thing: Kim Dotcom comes to mind.
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  Which doesn't sounds so absurd if you replace “tobacco” with “cocaine” and “Parisian” with “Colombian”.
  - iamnothere 1y ago
    It still sounds absurd to me. Nations should not be in the business of passing laws that apply to extraterritorial actions of foreign citizens. I know that it happens, especially with the US, but IMHO it’s just not how things should work. This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines. Just wait until 30 years from now when you can’t safely visit anywhere in the far East because you made a subversive comment about China. Although I’m sure the same people will hypocritically wail and gnash their teeth about the laws made by those people, when of course our extraterritorial laws are just fine.
    - lenerdenator 1y ago
      > This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines. This has been happening long before the US started doing it. If anything, it's normalized in the US because of the bad behavior prior to the US doing it. China's a great example. What does brutally crushing dissent internally and abroad without even a facade of a single care about human rights get you? Well, in their case, damn near superpower status. Been that way since at the very least Nixon's administration. The net effect was people started to wonder why we bother with the inefficiencies of "rights" and "privacy". The concern for human rights shown since the end of WWII in the West (particularly the US) is an exception, not norm, in history.
      - yupyupyups 1y ago
        >The net effect was people started to wonder why we bother with the inefficiencies of "rights" and "privacy". Who are these people you're talking about, tankies, faschists? The Chinese have the government that they deserve. They screw each other over, and what goes around comes around. It's a cautionary tale, not an example to follow.
- binary132 1y ago
  Good reminder that what happens on the server stays on the server, but what happens on the client happens wherever the client is.
morkalork 1y ago
The United States (eg. illegal gambling, hacking), South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) and many other countries operate the same way.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  > South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) And gambling, too. Remember in 2013 when all those celebrities got busted for gambling in Macao? > After getting caught gambling illegally, Shinhwa’s Andy, Boom and Yang Se Hyung received their punishments. > On November 28, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced Andy, Boom, and Yang Se Hyung to monetary penalties. Andy and Boom must pay 5,000,000 won, while Yang Se Hyung will pay 3,000,000 won. > The fines were dependent on how much money each person bet. Andy spent 44,000,000 won, Boom 33,000,000 won, and Yang Se Hyung 26,000,000 won. > The three are all currently pulled out of all schedules and self-reflecting on their actions. > Meanwhile, Lee Su Geun, Tak Jae Hoon, and Tony An are waiting for their first trial to take place on December 6. They bet more than several hundred million won. https://web.archive.org/web/20140215040022/http://mwave.interest.me/enewsworld/en/article/52114/andy-boom-yangsehyung-receive-fines https://web.archive.org/web/20140215040022/http://mwave.inte...
  - morkalork 1y ago
    There's also all the countries that have laws regarding sex-tourism abroad as well.
    - kstrauser 1y ago
      That's different in that it prosecutes citizens of those countries for things done outside their borders, not unrelated people doing things elsewhere. America will prosecute Americans for doing certain things that are illegal inside America outside its borders. As another example, if you take a boat to international waters and kill someone on it, you're going to get arrested and prosecuted when you get home. America will not arrest or prosecute someone from the UK visiting Thailand as a sex tourist.
adolph 1y ago
> but may not arrest/fine until such criminal trespassers get off the ferry in UK Many entities assert extraterritorial jurisdiction [0] for a broad range of activities. The critical question is if the offense would be categorized under an existing extradition treaty's list [1]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition

jojobas 1y ago

This case is more like UK bans selling cigarettes and tries going after a Parisian tobacconist.

beardyw 1y ago
Yes if the Parisian tabaconist sells in the UK. What happens in France is a French concern.
- jojobas 1y ago
  No, more like the Parisian tobacconist had the audacity to sell tobacco to some Brits without asking Ofcom.
  - tpoacher 1y ago
    yes, where said Brits were in Britain and the tobacco was shipped there.
    - Palmik 1y ago
      No, the tobacco was being served from France, the Brits used British pidgeon carriers to bring the tobacco to Britain.
- ibejoeb 1y ago
  Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.
  - foobarian 1y ago
    Time to stand up Hadrian's Firewall!
  - awesome_dude 1y ago
    There was an Australian case, I'll look it up, but the relevant bit, the publishing of the web page happened on a computer in Australia, which they claimed (successfully) gave them jurisdiction
    - ibejoeb 1y ago
      But what does successfully mean? An Australian court can rule on it, but Australia is going to have to take it up with US State from there. Or send the navy, I guess...
  - fecal_henge 1y ago
    I'm nearly at the point of saying that a tobacco sales isn't the best analogy here.
    - ibejoeb 1y ago
      I could be milk, right? Or a sheet of paper. I'll concede that it's not terribly far fetched. If the french entity produced a good that is illegal in the UK put it in the post to be delivered to the UK, then we have something like an analog to producing HTML in one place and displaying elsewhere. However, the thing about sovereignty is that you don't have it if you can't enforce it.
  - tgv 1y ago
    They're not going to Paris, are they? 4chan brings their services into the UK. The US does the same thing: Kim Dotcom comes to mind.
littlestymaar 1y ago
Which doesn't sounds so absurd if you replace “tobacco” with “cocaine” and “Parisian” with “Colombian”.
- iamnothere 1y ago
  It still sounds absurd to me. Nations should not be in the business of passing laws that apply to extraterritorial actions of foreign citizens. I know that it happens, especially with the US, but IMHO it’s just not how things should work. This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines. Just wait until 30 years from now when you can’t safely visit anywhere in the far East because you made a subversive comment about China. Although I’m sure the same people will hypocritically wail and gnash their teeth about the laws made by those people, when of course our extraterritorial laws are just fine.
  - lenerdenator 1y ago
    > This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines. This has been happening long before the US started doing it. If anything, it's normalized in the US because of the bad behavior prior to the US doing it. China's a great example. What does brutally crushing dissent internally and abroad without even a facade of a single care about human rights get you? Well, in their case, damn near superpower status. Been that way since at the very least Nixon's administration. The net effect was people started to wonder why we bother with the inefficiencies of "rights" and "privacy". The concern for human rights shown since the end of WWII in the West (particularly the US) is an exception, not norm, in history.
    - yupyupyups 1y ago
      >The net effect was people started to wonder why we bother with the inefficiencies of "rights" and "privacy". Who are these people you're talking about, tankies, faschists? The Chinese have the government that they deserve. They screw each other over, and what goes around comes around. It's a cautionary tale, not an example to follow.
binary132 1y ago
Good reminder that what happens on the server stays on the server, but what happens on the client happens wherever the client is.

morkalork 1y ago

The United States (eg. illegal gambling, hacking), South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) and many other countries operate the same way.

pessimizer 1y ago
> South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) And gambling, too. Remember in 2013 when all those celebrities got busted for gambling in Macao? > After getting caught gambling illegally, Shinhwa’s Andy, Boom and Yang Se Hyung received their punishments. > On November 28, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced Andy, Boom, and Yang Se Hyung to monetary penalties. Andy and Boom must pay 5,000,000 won, while Yang Se Hyung will pay 3,000,000 won. > The fines were dependent on how much money each person bet. Andy spent 44,000,000 won, Boom 33,000,000 won, and Yang Se Hyung 26,000,000 won. > The three are all currently pulled out of all schedules and self-reflecting on their actions. > Meanwhile, Lee Su Geun, Tak Jae Hoon, and Tony An are waiting for their first trial to take place on December 6. They bet more than several hundred million won. https://web.archive.org/web/20140215040022/http://mwave.interest.me/enewsworld/en/article/52114/andy-boom-yangsehyung-receive-fines https://web.archive.org/web/20140215040022/http://mwave.inte...
- morkalork 1y ago
  There's also all the countries that have laws regarding sex-tourism abroad as well.
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    That's different in that it prosecutes citizens of those countries for things done outside their borders, not unrelated people doing things elsewhere. America will prosecute Americans for doing certain things that are illegal inside America outside its borders. As another example, if you take a boat to international waters and kill someone on it, you're going to get arrested and prosecuted when you get home. America will not arrest or prosecute someone from the UK visiting Thailand as a sex tourist.

adolph 1y ago

> but may not arrest/fine until such criminal trespassers get off the ferry in UK Many entities assert extraterritorial jurisdiction [0] for a broad range of activities. The critical question is if the offense would be categorized under an existing extradition treaty's list [1]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritorial_jurisdiction 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition