5 ms·

> If I'm operating a Web site in country A, I should not have to care about country B's laws Not defending UK's idiotic laws, but this doesn't hold. If you can

> If I'm operating a Web site in country A, I should not have to care about country B's laws Not defending UK's idiotic laws, but this doesn't hold. If you cannot regulate websites outside of the country of origin, then no internet regulation can hold for any subject. Openly selling stolen personal credentials or botnet usage? Piracy? Reselling personal information without disclosure? So there are effectively three options for internet regulation; - Require websites to operate region by region with IP blocks for any non-target market. This is much of EU law is applied. If you put an effort to not serve EU costumers, you can skip following EU rules. "comply or leave" - Any country can regulate any website regardless of origin, like the UK seems to push for. This is an insane proposal and could easily create geopolitical disputes. Great firewall and banning VPNs would be the only proper way to achieve what they seem to aim for.... which i wouldn't put past them by now. - Give up regulating the internet entirely. Some level of regulation is valuable so I don't think this will ever work. There are simply some things illegal and deplorable enough to require laws.

iamnothere 11mo ago
If country B doesn’t like it, block the site in question. You’re not going to extradite US site operators, period. Find another approach.
- mlhpdx 11mo ago
  That’s what they’re doing
  - iamnothere 11mo ago
    No, they are making threats about the site in country A while the site has voluntarily blocked all of country B, with country B saying that this isn’t enough, despite the operators in country A being out of jurisdiction and making an effort to comply regardless. Country B is basically saying that the site in country A is not allowed on the internet at all.
  - pirates 11mo ago
    It’s not at all what they’re doing, and claiming so is either extreme ignorance of the situation or deliberately lying.
- aDyslecticCrow 11mo ago
  Then no country should have legal authority over companies operating in the country but based internationally. You could earn a lot of money by selling unregistered firearms, pipe bombs or drugs over the internet and sending it over the border. "If country B doesn’t like it, block the mail in question". Saying only the country of origin can regulate activity done in another country creates a legal worm-bucket with vast implications. It's also not how laws work currently in pretty much any other sector than the internet. IP block should be sufficient to void the laws; That's how other EU laws work. If the UK wants more than than then they should just create a firewall. But saying the internet should be a fully unregulated hellscape is not a sensible position here.
  - iamnothere 11mo ago
    > "If country B doesn’t like it, block the mail in question" That’s actually how it works? Unless you have an extradition agreement, or military overmatch, or you are willing to expend some diplomatic leverage, you are typically not getting a citizen out of a foreign country. The government complains about this all the time with goods from SE Asia, and sometimes they seize fake designer goods and make a lot of noise about it. But the people making the knockoffs just keep on making them, don’t they?
    - aDyslecticCrow 11mo ago
      just because a law is difficult to enforce doesn't make it not exist. There are laws for this, and they are enforced. If you aint caught its not illegal?
      - iamnothere 11mo ago
        Typically one-sided laws are not enforced against citizens of foreign countries except in rare cases, because it creates diplomatic friction. Countries really don’t like it when you arrest their citizens for things that aren’t illegal at home. And when one country has enormous leverage over another, it’s a bad idea for the less powerful country to attempt enforcement. A visa ban would usually be a more appropriate tactic.
Hizonner 11mo ago
> no internet regulation can hold for any subject No Internet regulation can hold extraterritorially. You leave out the obvious and most important case: the country where the Web site or whatever is located enforcing its own laws. Which is actually how all law has mostly worked from day one. > Openly selling stolen personal credentials or botnet usage? Piracy? Reselling personal information without disclosure? If you find a jurisdiction where those are all legal, then I guess you just have to block your citizens from reaching it, or punish them if they do. Not particularly tricky.
- aDyslecticCrow 11mo ago
  > Which is actually how all law has mostly worked from day one. Internet but not for any other commerce. If you sell products to someone in the EU, you are liable to EU laws about that product category and commercial activity. The internet is the only exception, and that has caused a lot of problems. IP block is the currently the only reasonable way to apply laws to internet based commerce. It has its flaws in accuracy; but ISPs could easily create a system to make them more reliable for IP lookup. Arguing that websites cannot be regulated outside of country of origin is an insane position to take with even the minimal level of hypothetical reasoning of what that would imply. UKs laws are dumb, but they should be free to enforce them for websites operating in the UK. And websites should be able to leave the UK to avoid complying. This is a reasonable compromise that is already how both US and EU internet laws operate.
  - Hizonner 11mo ago
    > Internet but not for any other commerce. If you sell products to someone in the EU, you are liable to EU laws about that product category and commercial activity. The internet is the only exception, and that has caused a lot of problems. I don't know the state of play now, and I do know that things have gotten more that way over time. But the traditional approach to international product sales is that the importer is responsible. That originally meant the person who physically brought it into the country. As common carriers became more common, it meant the person who ordered the thing. That's occasionally been leavened by some consideration of whether the seller specifically targeted customers in the receiving country. And nowadays there's more of a tendency to start "blaming" sellers in some cases, probably because nowadays "importing" something is often a retail order from a specific consumer, as opposed to somebody bringing in a shipping container on spec to resell. Maybe some of those changes are appropriate, but it's just not true that physical goods have always been treated the way you want Web sites treated here, or even that they're mostly treated that way now. > IP block is the currently the only reasonable way to apply laws to internet based commerce. "IP block" works in both directions. If you want to keep something out of your country, you should be responsible for blocking it, not the other way around. That's not necessarily easy, but it's less costly in total than demanding that every Web site enforce every country's regulation... and it has the advantage of putting the cost of a regulation on the people imposing it, which is where it belongs. > It has its flaws in accuracy; but ISPs could easily create a system to make them more reliable for IP lookup. From your use of the word "easily", I conclude that you personally would not be among those responsible for making that work. > Arguing that websites cannot be regulated outside of country of origin is an insane position to take with even the minimal level of hypothetical reasoning of what that would imply. First, you can in fact "regulate" by blocking, without trying to extend the reach of your laws outside of your border. Your claim that a regulator is left totally powerless is just false. Second, in practice, that "hypothetical" is pretty close to what we have now, and even closer to what we had 10 years ago. The world did not end. > UKs laws are dumb, but they should be free to enforce them for websites operating in the UK Sure, as long as we recognize that "operating in the UK" properly means "is physically located in or controlled from the UK" and not "happens to be accessible to people in the UK". The latter definition would indeed be insane.
miki123211 11mo ago
Another option is an anti-money-laundering like system. It would need to be set up by an extremely powerful country, either the US or an alliance of smaller countries through international treaty. It would work as follows: There'd be a "naughty list." Anybody on the list would be arrested upon entering a participating country. This would include past or current company employees (if employed after the listing date). Companies from participating countries would be prohibited from interacting with listed organizations in any way, under treat of sanctions. This would include VPN, cloud and hosting companies, ISPs, domain registrars, email hosts, payment processors and ad networks. This would provide basic site blocking. Foreign companies wouldn't be subject to the sanctions, but participating countries would also put them on the list.
- vessenes 11mo ago
  You're aware this exists, yes? It's called the OFAC list. It's not generally used to list technologists or web sites related to speech, though, as far as I know.
  - tatersolid 11mo ago
    Interestingly many, if not most cybercrime organizations are on the OFAC list. So many companies who have paid when hit by ransomware have violated US law. I am unaware of any prosecutions in this area. https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/sanctions-related-to-significant-malicious-cyber-enabled-activities https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-inf...
cultureulterior 11mo ago
> then no internet regulation can hold for any subject Good
kelnos 11mo ago
> If you cannot regulate websites outside of the country of origin, then no internet regulation can hold for any subject. It can, but instead of forcing other people to follow your laws, you have to block your country's residents from accessing the sites that break your laws. I'm not saying I love this method either (China is famously very good at it, and I don't think their methods foster a healthy society), but I believe it should be the only lever you have. Forcing people outside your jurisdiction to follow your laws is a violation of another country's sovereignty. As an aside, should I take pains to ensure any website I operate follows the laws of North Korea? Iran? China? Russia? Should we be complacent and accepting if HN were to be targeted by any of those governments because people here have undoubtedly said unflattering things about the leaders of those countries? Of course not. But even though we're talking about a "friend"-type country here, it's not any different.

iamnothere 11mo ago

If country B doesn’t like it, block the site in question. You’re not going to extradite US site operators, period. Find another approach.

mlhpdx 11mo ago
That’s what they’re doing
- iamnothere 11mo ago
  No, they are making threats about the site in country A while the site has voluntarily blocked all of country B, with country B saying that this isn’t enough, despite the operators in country A being out of jurisdiction and making an effort to comply regardless. Country B is basically saying that the site in country A is not allowed on the internet at all.
- pirates 11mo ago
  It’s not at all what they’re doing, and claiming so is either extreme ignorance of the situation or deliberately lying.
aDyslecticCrow 11mo ago
Then no country should have legal authority over companies operating in the country but based internationally. You could earn a lot of money by selling unregistered firearms, pipe bombs or drugs over the internet and sending it over the border. "If country B doesn’t like it, block the mail in question". Saying only the country of origin can regulate activity done in another country creates a legal worm-bucket with vast implications. It's also not how laws work currently in pretty much any other sector than the internet. IP block should be sufficient to void the laws; That's how other EU laws work. If the UK wants more than than then they should just create a firewall. But saying the internet should be a fully unregulated hellscape is not a sensible position here.
- iamnothere 11mo ago
  > "If country B doesn’t like it, block the mail in question" That’s actually how it works? Unless you have an extradition agreement, or military overmatch, or you are willing to expend some diplomatic leverage, you are typically not getting a citizen out of a foreign country. The government complains about this all the time with goods from SE Asia, and sometimes they seize fake designer goods and make a lot of noise about it. But the people making the knockoffs just keep on making them, don’t they?
  - aDyslecticCrow 11mo ago
    just because a law is difficult to enforce doesn't make it not exist. There are laws for this, and they are enforced. If you aint caught its not illegal?
    - iamnothere 11mo ago
      Typically one-sided laws are not enforced against citizens of foreign countries except in rare cases, because it creates diplomatic friction. Countries really don’t like it when you arrest their citizens for things that aren’t illegal at home. And when one country has enormous leverage over another, it’s a bad idea for the less powerful country to attempt enforcement. A visa ban would usually be a more appropriate tactic.

Hizonner 11mo ago

> no internet regulation can hold for any subject No Internet regulation can hold extraterritorially. You leave out the obvious and most important case: the country where the Web site or whatever is located enforcing its own laws. Which is actually how all law has mostly worked from day one. > Openly selling stolen personal credentials or botnet usage? Piracy? Reselling personal information without disclosure? If you find a jurisdiction where those are all legal, then I guess you just have to block your citizens from reaching it, or punish them if they do. Not particularly tricky.

aDyslecticCrow 11mo ago
> Which is actually how all law has mostly worked from day one. Internet but not for any other commerce. If you sell products to someone in the EU, you are liable to EU laws about that product category and commercial activity. The internet is the only exception, and that has caused a lot of problems. IP block is the currently the only reasonable way to apply laws to internet based commerce. It has its flaws in accuracy; but ISPs could easily create a system to make them more reliable for IP lookup. Arguing that websites cannot be regulated outside of country of origin is an insane position to take with even the minimal level of hypothetical reasoning of what that would imply. UKs laws are dumb, but they should be free to enforce them for websites operating in the UK. And websites should be able to leave the UK to avoid complying. This is a reasonable compromise that is already how both US and EU internet laws operate.
- Hizonner 11mo ago
  > Internet but not for any other commerce. If you sell products to someone in the EU, you are liable to EU laws about that product category and commercial activity. The internet is the only exception, and that has caused a lot of problems. I don't know the state of play now, and I do know that things have gotten more that way over time. But the traditional approach to international product sales is that the importer is responsible. That originally meant the person who physically brought it into the country. As common carriers became more common, it meant the person who ordered the thing. That's occasionally been leavened by some consideration of whether the seller specifically targeted customers in the receiving country. And nowadays there's more of a tendency to start "blaming" sellers in some cases, probably because nowadays "importing" something is often a retail order from a specific consumer, as opposed to somebody bringing in a shipping container on spec to resell. Maybe some of those changes are appropriate, but it's just not true that physical goods have always been treated the way you want Web sites treated here, or even that they're mostly treated that way now. > IP block is the currently the only reasonable way to apply laws to internet based commerce. "IP block" works in both directions. If you want to keep something out of your country, you should be responsible for blocking it, not the other way around. That's not necessarily easy, but it's less costly in total than demanding that every Web site enforce every country's regulation... and it has the advantage of putting the cost of a regulation on the people imposing it, which is where it belongs. > It has its flaws in accuracy; but ISPs could easily create a system to make them more reliable for IP lookup. From your use of the word "easily", I conclude that you personally would not be among those responsible for making that work. > Arguing that websites cannot be regulated outside of country of origin is an insane position to take with even the minimal level of hypothetical reasoning of what that would imply. First, you can in fact "regulate" by blocking, without trying to extend the reach of your laws outside of your border. Your claim that a regulator is left totally powerless is just false. Second, in practice, that "hypothetical" is pretty close to what we have now, and even closer to what we had 10 years ago. The world did not end. > UKs laws are dumb, but they should be free to enforce them for websites operating in the UK Sure, as long as we recognize that "operating in the UK" properly means "is physically located in or controlled from the UK" and not "happens to be accessible to people in the UK". The latter definition would indeed be insane.

miki123211 11mo ago

Another option is an anti-money-laundering like system. It would need to be set up by an extremely powerful country, either the US or an alliance of smaller countries through international treaty. It would work as follows: There'd be a "naughty list." Anybody on the list would be arrested upon entering a participating country. This would include past or current company employees (if employed after the listing date). Companies from participating countries would be prohibited from interacting with listed organizations in any way, under treat of sanctions. This would include VPN, cloud and hosting companies, ISPs, domain registrars, email hosts, payment processors and ad networks. This would provide basic site blocking. Foreign companies wouldn't be subject to the sanctions, but participating countries would also put them on the list.

vessenes 11mo ago
You're aware this exists, yes? It's called the OFAC list. It's not generally used to list technologists or web sites related to speech, though, as far as I know.
- tatersolid 11mo ago
  Interestingly many, if not most cybercrime organizations are on the OFAC list. So many companies who have paid when hit by ransomware have violated US law. I am unaware of any prosecutions in this area. https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information/sanctions-related-to-significant-malicious-cyber-enabled-activities https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-inf...

cultureulterior 11mo ago

> then no internet regulation can hold for any subject Good

kelnos 11mo ago

> If you cannot regulate websites outside of the country of origin, then no internet regulation can hold for any subject. It can, but instead of forcing other people to follow your laws, you have to block your country's residents from accessing the sites that break your laws. I'm not saying I love this method either (China is famously very good at it, and I don't think their methods foster a healthy society), but I believe it should be the only lever you have. Forcing people outside your jurisdiction to follow your laws is a violation of another country's sovereignty. As an aside, should I take pains to ensure any website I operate follows the laws of North Korea? Iran? China? Russia? Should we be complacent and accepting if HN were to be targeted by any of those governments because people here have undoubtedly said unflattering things about the leaders of those countries? Of course not. But even though we're talking about a "friend"-type country here, it's not any different.