3 ms·

Well yes, that should be self-evident. A company must follow laws of any locality under which it engages with or utilises resources from as a component of its b

Well yes, that should be self-evident. A company must follow laws of any locality under which it engages with or utilises resources from as a component of its business. They're previously tried this domestically in every way possible under the purview of things like the MPA and the DMCA. The United States International Trade Commission went so far as to consider electronic transmissions to the U.S. as "articles" so that it could prevent the importation of digital files of counterfeit goods. In the meantime, AI companies are forgetting when the shoe was on the other foot regarding Russian MP3 websites accessible from the US - with the US trade negotiators warning Russia that allowing AllOfMP3 to continue to operate would jeopardize Russia's entry into the World Trade Organization, and the US copyright lobby subsequently filing a $1.7 trillion lawsuit against them. "AllofMP3 understands that several U.S. record label companies filed a lawsuit against Media Services in New York. This suit is unjustified as AllofMP3 does not operate in New York. Certainly the labels are free to file any suit they wish, despite knowing full well that AllofMP3 operates legally in Russia. In the meantime, AllofMP3 plans to continue to operate legally and comply with all Russian laws."." On May 20, 2008, the RIAA dropped all copyright infringement charges against AllOfMP3.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllOfMP3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllOfMP3

_heimdall 1y ago
> engages with or utilises resources This phrase does a lot of heavy lifting. I have a small business for consulting and occasionally need to use hardware made in a foreign country to search online content created and hosted in another country. I wouldn't expect buying that foreign hardware or searching foreign content would put me under the jurisdiction of laws from the various foreign countries involved.
- piltdownman 1y ago
  But it always has - if a given user improperly gains access to an American computer system, they violate federal law, specifically the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) of 1986. By making these activities federal crimes, the CFAA creates a legal foundation for pursuing alleged infringers, regardless of their location. In deciding whether a U.S. statute may be applied extraterritorially, courts look to two potential foundations for jurisdiction: first, the jurisdictional basis, “territoriality, nationality, passive personality, universality, or the protective principle”; and second, legislative intent. CFAA Passes both these tests. This is clarified in U.S. Const. art. I, § 8s. 10, 3; art. VI, cl. 2. Cf. United States v. Baston, 818 F.3d 651, 666-67 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Congress’s power to enact extraterritorial laws is not limited to the Offenses Clause”). i.e. the Chinese Military Personnel Charged with Computer Fraud, Economic Espionage and Wire Fraud for Hacking into Credit Reporting Agency Equifax, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-military-personnel-charged-computer-fraud-economic-espionage-and-wire-fraud-hacking https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-military-personnel-ch... If you want a phrase that does a lot of heavy lifting, the specific computers in scope are defined under section 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) - "...including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States." Similarly, in United States v. Neil Scott Kramer (2011) it was determined that ALL cell-phones represent computers in scope - "...the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that a cell phone can be considered a computer if "the phone perform[s] arithmetic, logical, and storage functions." My favourite, however, is the precedent set by Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers' International Union (2011) - urging legitimate communications via official digital channels constitutes a DDOS and breach of the CFAA if the official channel cannot handle the subsequent spike in volume! This travesty arose after Pulte fired an employee represented by the union and LIUNA urged members to call and send email to the company to express their dissatisfaction. As a result of the increased traffic, the company's email system crashed. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the LIUNA's instruction to call and email "intentionally caused damage".
  - _heimdall 1y ago
    They were indicted, were they convicted? My point wasn't whether a state can claim jurisdiction or whether they might even win in their local court. They need to be able to actually try the case. For a foreigner charged with a crime they would need to be caught on US soil or extradited by a country willing to cooperate. For businesses it generally comes down to leverage the government may have on corporate assets or similarly arresting business leaders should they be caught on US soil (or whatever country is indicting them). Governments can claim jurisdiction, they can't always enforce it and other countries don't always agree on that jurisdictional claim.

_heimdall 1y ago

> engages with or utilises resources This phrase does a lot of heavy lifting. I have a small business for consulting and occasionally need to use hardware made in a foreign country to search online content created and hosted in another country. I wouldn't expect buying that foreign hardware or searching foreign content would put me under the jurisdiction of laws from the various foreign countries involved.

piltdownman 1y ago
But it always has - if a given user improperly gains access to an American computer system, they violate federal law, specifically the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) of 1986. By making these activities federal crimes, the CFAA creates a legal foundation for pursuing alleged infringers, regardless of their location. In deciding whether a U.S. statute may be applied extraterritorially, courts look to two potential foundations for jurisdiction: first, the jurisdictional basis, “territoriality, nationality, passive personality, universality, or the protective principle”; and second, legislative intent. CFAA Passes both these tests. This is clarified in U.S. Const. art. I, § 8s. 10, 3; art. VI, cl. 2. Cf. United States v. Baston, 818 F.3d 651, 666-67 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Congress’s power to enact extraterritorial laws is not limited to the Offenses Clause”). i.e. the Chinese Military Personnel Charged with Computer Fraud, Economic Espionage and Wire Fraud for Hacking into Credit Reporting Agency Equifax, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-military-personnel-charged-computer-fraud-economic-espionage-and-wire-fraud-hacking https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/chinese-military-personnel-ch... If you want a phrase that does a lot of heavy lifting, the specific computers in scope are defined under section 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2) - "...including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States." Similarly, in United States v. Neil Scott Kramer (2011) it was determined that ALL cell-phones represent computers in scope - "...the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that a cell phone can be considered a computer if "the phone perform[s] arithmetic, logical, and storage functions." My favourite, however, is the precedent set by Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers' International Union (2011) - urging legitimate communications via official digital channels constitutes a DDOS and breach of the CFAA if the official channel cannot handle the subsequent spike in volume! This travesty arose after Pulte fired an employee represented by the union and LIUNA urged members to call and send email to the company to express their dissatisfaction. As a result of the increased traffic, the company's email system crashed. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the LIUNA's instruction to call and email "intentionally caused damage".
- _heimdall 1y ago
  They were indicted, were they convicted? My point wasn't whether a state can claim jurisdiction or whether they might even win in their local court. They need to be able to actually try the case. For a foreigner charged with a crime they would need to be caught on US soil or extradited by a country willing to cooperate. For businesses it generally comes down to leverage the government may have on corporate assets or similarly arresting business leaders should they be caught on US soil (or whatever country is indicting them). Governments can claim jurisdiction, they can't always enforce it and other countries don't always agree on that jurisdictional claim.