6 ms·

I think if something is hosted in a different country, the laws of that country apply to that service. It's not under your jurisdiction, so you have no say in w

I think if something is hosted in a different country, the laws of that country apply to that service. It's not under your jurisdiction, so you have no say in whether it's allowed to exist, nor should you. You can, of course, pass a law making it illegal for your citizens to communicate with that service, but I think it's really important to understand that that's what's happening. You are passing a law which applies to your citizens and their right to communicate with people in other countries; it's their freedoms you are placing limits on, not the freedoms of the foreign website. Sometimes when you frame things that way, such restrictions stop making sense. (Though perhaps not always.)

vkou 1y ago
You're missing one further step - you can also sanction a foreign business from doing business in your country. So, you can allow it to serve your citizens packets, but if you block it from collecting revenue, it will have little incentive to (unless it's a state-sponsored bad actor, then you can only lean on the two mechanisms you described). All three prongs (ban hosting, ban access, ban revenue) can be used to keep foreign interference out of your country.
- Ajedi32 1y ago
  True, but I would still frame that as a restriction on your own citizen's freedom to buy services from foreign countries. Unless they're physically shipping stuff across your borders, a foreign website that accepts payment from your citizens isn't "doing business in your country" anymore than a hot dog vendor is by serving foreign tourists in my opinion.
  - vkou 1y ago
    > Unless they're physically shipping stuff across your borders, a foreign website that accepts payment from your citizens isn't "doing business in your country" anymore than a hot dog vendor is by serving foreign tourists in my opinion. We're in the electronic age, 'stuff' includes electricity, media, and remote-provided services. For a concrete example - if you're buying legal advice from a lawyer, it doesn't matter if he's down the street from you, or on another continent - the exchange of money for 'stuff' is the same.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  > but if you block it from collecting revenue How is this not a trade barrier against foreign payment providers?
  - vkou 1y ago
    If it's nation-of-origin-agnostic (All vendors, domestic or foreign have to follow the same rules, and the foreigners have chosen to not follow those rules, and are being sanctioned for it), it's not a trade barrier. It's just a foreign company being upset that it isn't getting special treatment that would allow it to operate with an illegal advantage over local vendors.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      Is that what it is though? It seems weird that such an overwhelming majority of US retail banking customers are using a domestic institution if the foreign ones are getting a fair shake, doesn't it? Countries do a thing where they call something "neutral rules" while crafting them such that only the domestic incumbents can satisfy them or they can be selectively enforced against anyone the regulators don't like or who actually does or is deemed likely to refuse to comply with extralegal requests that the law doesn't or couldn't require. The US financial regulators do exactly that and you can see it in the outcomes.
      - vkou 1y ago
        > It seems weird that such an overwhelming majority of US retail banking customers are using a domestic institution if the foreign ones are getting a fair shake, doesn't it? Why is it weird? All other aspects being equal, why would you want to put your money into a bank that's accountable to another government first, and your market second? Banking involves a ton of (unverifiable from the retail end) trust. There are a lot of risks to it. Going with a local institution mitigates some of them, and going with a foreign one adds very few benefits (Unless you're doing a lot of business in their home country). You can absolutely bank with a foreign bank. HSBC is a giant international bank. TD and RBC are Canadian banks with branches in the US (RBC's are whitelabeled as City National Bank). If you want to do some tax evasion, or deal with the fallout of rogue traders, or bank with someone who has the rotting corpse of Credit Suisse anchored around its neck, you're free to do your retail (or investment) banking with UBS. Why aren't you using them? I assure you, you'll find the experience largely interchangeable with the same level of service you'd expect from any of the Big Four.
pfortuny 1y ago
Mmmmhhhhh… There is the problem of the middleman (the telcos): you are using them for communication. I guess if the USPS/Fedex knew for a fact (such as your website request) that you were communicating CP, the. they should do something about it? This is an honest question.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  > I guess if the USPS/Fedex knew for a fact (such as your website request) that you were communicating CP, the. they should do something about it? That is often the case, but it's also not the relevant part, because consider what happens if you do that. I mean it's the same thing that happens with parcel carriers -- everybody's package ends up in an opaque brown box and the carrier has no means to determine if it's contraband. They just weigh it and deliver it, which is what they're supposed to do, because they're not the police. And so it is with ISPs. What happens if you make them block stuff people actually want? TLS, third party DNS, VPNs, etc. At that point you have to answer a different question: Should they be obligated to open and censor your mail? No. The answer is no.
  - dingnuts 1y ago
    > Should they be obligated to open and censor your mail? they are. they're not obligated to go through every package but they are absolutely obligated to turn over packages to law enforcement, and they do, and law enforcement will one hundred percent open and go through your mail. and if they find something you shouldn't have they will dress up as a mail carrier to deliver it to you and then detain you! I'm not sure what point you're trying to make exactly but this is a losing battle
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      If the government wants to read your mail, they need a warrant. And then it's the government doing it, not a private company, and you have a right to a trial and to see the evidence presented against you etc. etc., which is why it shouldn't be put on a private company who isn't going to do any of that.
foxglacier 1y ago
"your citizens" includes your ISPs so you can forbid them from delivering that content to their customers in your country, which is just site blocking. The law could allow consumption of the material but not redistribution within your country so it's not the end user's responsibility but is the ISP's. What about name suppression for criminal cases? If somebody is charged with a crime but hasn't yet had their trial, or is the victim of a crime such as sexual abuse, some countries will allow judges to forbid publication of their name (in case they turn out to be innocent) so local media can't say who it is but foreign media does and local people all know who it is anyway, defeating the purpose of name suppression. Perhaps we shouldn't have name suppression?
bloppe 1y ago
How is this different from the status quo?
- Ajedi32 1y ago
  It's not. It's just a different (and in my opinion, more accurate) way of framing what the status quo is. Governments aren't really "blocking websites"; they're blocking their citizens ability to communicate with those websites. For any country which cares about the freedom of its citizens, I feel the latter framing ought to make them significantly more hesitant to enact such measures.

vkou 1y ago

You're missing one further step - you can also sanction a foreign business from doing business in your country. So, you can allow it to serve your citizens packets, but if you block it from collecting revenue, it will have little incentive to (unless it's a state-sponsored bad actor, then you can only lean on the two mechanisms you described). All three prongs (ban hosting, ban access, ban revenue) can be used to keep foreign interference out of your country.

Ajedi32 1y ago
True, but I would still frame that as a restriction on your own citizen's freedom to buy services from foreign countries. Unless they're physically shipping stuff across your borders, a foreign website that accepts payment from your citizens isn't "doing business in your country" anymore than a hot dog vendor is by serving foreign tourists in my opinion.
- vkou 1y ago
  > Unless they're physically shipping stuff across your borders, a foreign website that accepts payment from your citizens isn't "doing business in your country" anymore than a hot dog vendor is by serving foreign tourists in my opinion. We're in the electronic age, 'stuff' includes electricity, media, and remote-provided services. For a concrete example - if you're buying legal advice from a lawyer, it doesn't matter if he's down the street from you, or on another continent - the exchange of money for 'stuff' is the same.
AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> but if you block it from collecting revenue How is this not a trade barrier against foreign payment providers?
- vkou 1y ago
  If it's nation-of-origin-agnostic (All vendors, domestic or foreign have to follow the same rules, and the foreigners have chosen to not follow those rules, and are being sanctioned for it), it's not a trade barrier. It's just a foreign company being upset that it isn't getting special treatment that would allow it to operate with an illegal advantage over local vendors.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    Is that what it is though? It seems weird that such an overwhelming majority of US retail banking customers are using a domestic institution if the foreign ones are getting a fair shake, doesn't it? Countries do a thing where they call something "neutral rules" while crafting them such that only the domestic incumbents can satisfy them or they can be selectively enforced against anyone the regulators don't like or who actually does or is deemed likely to refuse to comply with extralegal requests that the law doesn't or couldn't require. The US financial regulators do exactly that and you can see it in the outcomes.
    - vkou 1y ago
      > It seems weird that such an overwhelming majority of US retail banking customers are using a domestic institution if the foreign ones are getting a fair shake, doesn't it? Why is it weird? All other aspects being equal, why would you want to put your money into a bank that's accountable to another government first, and your market second? Banking involves a ton of (unverifiable from the retail end) trust. There are a lot of risks to it. Going with a local institution mitigates some of them, and going with a foreign one adds very few benefits (Unless you're doing a lot of business in their home country). You can absolutely bank with a foreign bank. HSBC is a giant international bank. TD and RBC are Canadian banks with branches in the US (RBC's are whitelabeled as City National Bank). If you want to do some tax evasion, or deal with the fallout of rogue traders, or bank with someone who has the rotting corpse of Credit Suisse anchored around its neck, you're free to do your retail (or investment) banking with UBS. Why aren't you using them? I assure you, you'll find the experience largely interchangeable with the same level of service you'd expect from any of the Big Four.

pfortuny 1y ago

Mmmmhhhhh… There is the problem of the middleman (the telcos): you are using them for communication. I guess if the USPS/Fedex knew for a fact (such as your website request) that you were communicating CP, the. they should do something about it? This is an honest question.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> I guess if the USPS/Fedex knew for a fact (such as your website request) that you were communicating CP, the. they should do something about it? That is often the case, but it's also not the relevant part, because consider what happens if you do that. I mean it's the same thing that happens with parcel carriers -- everybody's package ends up in an opaque brown box and the carrier has no means to determine if it's contraband. They just weigh it and deliver it, which is what they're supposed to do, because they're not the police. And so it is with ISPs. What happens if you make them block stuff people actually want? TLS, third party DNS, VPNs, etc. At that point you have to answer a different question: Should they be obligated to open and censor your mail? No. The answer is no.
- dingnuts 1y ago
  > Should they be obligated to open and censor your mail? they are. they're not obligated to go through every package but they are absolutely obligated to turn over packages to law enforcement, and they do, and law enforcement will one hundred percent open and go through your mail. and if they find something you shouldn't have they will dress up as a mail carrier to deliver it to you and then detain you! I'm not sure what point you're trying to make exactly but this is a losing battle
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    If the government wants to read your mail, they need a warrant. And then it's the government doing it, not a private company, and you have a right to a trial and to see the evidence presented against you etc. etc., which is why it shouldn't be put on a private company who isn't going to do any of that.

foxglacier 1y ago

"your citizens" includes your ISPs so you can forbid them from delivering that content to their customers in your country, which is just site blocking. The law could allow consumption of the material but not redistribution within your country so it's not the end user's responsibility but is the ISP's. What about name suppression for criminal cases? If somebody is charged with a crime but hasn't yet had their trial, or is the victim of a crime such as sexual abuse, some countries will allow judges to forbid publication of their name (in case they turn out to be innocent) so local media can't say who it is but foreign media does and local people all know who it is anyway, defeating the purpose of name suppression. Perhaps we shouldn't have name suppression?

bloppe 1y ago

How is this different from the status quo?

Ajedi32 1y ago
It's not. It's just a different (and in my opinion, more accurate) way of framing what the status quo is. Governments aren't really "blocking websites"; they're blocking their citizens ability to communicate with those websites. For any country which cares about the freedom of its citizens, I feel the latter framing ought to make them significantly more hesitant to enact such measures.