5 ms·

Not to mention the UN convention on cybercrime which is a ridiculous one since it makes co-operation necessary if the penalty in the home country is 4 or more y

Not to mention the UN convention on cybercrime which is a ridiculous one since it makes co-operation necessary if the penalty in the home country is 4 or more years - there are quite a few countries where speaking out against the leader, been gay or been trans will get you that (or much much worse). Canada opposed it originally and then quietly signed it most recently, the UK didn't start this stuff though we are up to our tea drinking little necks in it as usual.

TZubiri 2mo ago
Pointing out a law you don't like in another country as justification to ignore local laws, or to critique internation relations policy, is a terrible argument. Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them? I think comes down to what influence you think you have. I'm a backend developer and sys admin, when it comes to international law, I think of it in relation to hosting content in other countries or serving users in other countries. Judging the quality of laws on another country is beyond my scope, if it conflicts with my ethical constitution, I just don't provide service to that country, I don't provide service in an anonymous manner that makes it possible for users of that country to evade local law because I find the law may contain bad parts. What I'm not sure is whether you think of your influence on the subject as a sysadmin that actually wants to provide such services, or whether you think of it as some individual posturing, like a random citizen voicing their opinion on Israel v Palestina knowing full well you have no influence.
- TremendousJudge 2mo ago
  >Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them? Yeah, I think that's pretty much the definition of the right of asylum.
  - TZubiri 2mo ago
    Not sure if asylum is relevant here. Crucially, asylum is granted when the person is already on the jurisdiction of the country that grants asylum. Granting asylum to someone on another jurisdiction and extraditing them is already problematic. Granting asylum remotely while they stay in that jurisdiction is unheard of. And a system admin or service provider like us mortals, don't have the authority to grant asylum. Like we would say in Argentina, you are peeing outside the bowl.
    - ipaddr 2mo ago
      [dead]
- kerkeslager 2mo ago
  > Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them? I don't know your political beliefs, but I'll say that conservatives make this nonsense argument all the time. Focus: the person you're responding to is talking about people going to jail for criticizing a leader or being gay or trans. These are violations of human rights. I can't speak for noir_lord, but for me, human rights are more important than any law, full stop. If human rights are being violated by the law, the law is wrong and it is our ethical imperative to do everything within our power to hinder the enforcement of that law (note that what is within our power may not be much). So when you say, "Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them?" my response is that if any country has laws that violate human rights, then it is our ethical obligation to ignore those laws. To be clear: I'll happily break the laws of my own country if those laws violate human rights. Human rights supersede laws in every case. > I think comes down to what influence you think you have. I'm a backend developer and sys admin, when it comes to international law, I think of it in relation to hosting content in other countries or serving users in other countries. Judging the quality of laws on another country is beyond my scope, if it conflicts with my ethical constitution, I just don't provide service to that country, I don't provide service in an anonymous manner that makes it possible for users of that country to evade local law because I find the law may contain bad parts. Standing up for human rights isn't beyond your scope, nor is it beyond your influence. You can provide service in an anonymous manner that makes it possible for users of that country to evade local laws, you just choose not to. And look, we all have limited resources--I'm not saying you're obligated to help with every human rights issue that you come across. But it seems like you're saying that nobody should help people break local laws, even when those laws are unethical. And frankly, that makes you unethical. It's no inconvenience to you if I help Saudi Arabian gays hide their sexual orientation or help Russians criticize Putin. If you're trying to get other people who want to protect human rights to stop doing that, you're de-facto supporting those human rights violations, whether you explicitly agree with them or not. > What I'm not sure is whether you think of your influence on the subject as a sysadmin that actually wants to provide such services, or whether you think of it as some individual posturing, like a random citizen voicing their opinion on Israel v Palestina knowing full well you have no influence. Disingenuous nonsense. Certainly a lot of what is done in the name of human rights is ineffective. But I'm not even seeing any indication you care about human rights. Why should someone who does care about human rights be taking strategic notes from you?
volkl48 2mo ago
The US is not currently a signatory to that, just to note.

TZubiri 2mo ago

Pointing out a law you don't like in another country as justification to ignore local laws, or to critique internation relations policy, is a terrible argument. Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them? I think comes down to what influence you think you have. I'm a backend developer and sys admin, when it comes to international law, I think of it in relation to hosting content in other countries or serving users in other countries. Judging the quality of laws on another country is beyond my scope, if it conflicts with my ethical constitution, I just don't provide service to that country, I don't provide service in an anonymous manner that makes it possible for users of that country to evade local law because I find the law may contain bad parts. What I'm not sure is whether you think of your influence on the subject as a sysadmin that actually wants to provide such services, or whether you think of it as some individual posturing, like a random citizen voicing their opinion on Israel v Palestina knowing full well you have no influence.

TremendousJudge 2mo ago
>Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them? Yeah, I think that's pretty much the definition of the right of asylum.
- TZubiri 2mo ago
  Not sure if asylum is relevant here. Crucially, asylum is granted when the person is already on the jurisdiction of the country that grants asylum. Granting asylum to someone on another jurisdiction and extraditing them is already problematic. Granting asylum remotely while they stay in that jurisdiction is unheard of. And a system admin or service provider like us mortals, don't have the authority to grant asylum. Like we would say in Argentina, you are peeing outside the bowl.
  - ipaddr 2mo ago
    [dead]
kerkeslager 2mo ago
> Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them? I don't know your political beliefs, but I'll say that conservatives make this nonsense argument all the time. Focus: the person you're responding to is talking about people going to jail for criticizing a leader or being gay or trans. These are violations of human rights. I can't speak for noir_lord, but for me, human rights are more important than any law, full stop. If human rights are being violated by the law, the law is wrong and it is our ethical imperative to do everything within our power to hinder the enforcement of that law (note that what is within our power may not be much). So when you say, "Some country has laws that some other country dislikes, therefore they should be able to ignore them?" my response is that if any country has laws that violate human rights, then it is our ethical obligation to ignore those laws. To be clear: I'll happily break the laws of my own country if those laws violate human rights. Human rights supersede laws in every case. > I think comes down to what influence you think you have. I'm a backend developer and sys admin, when it comes to international law, I think of it in relation to hosting content in other countries or serving users in other countries. Judging the quality of laws on another country is beyond my scope, if it conflicts with my ethical constitution, I just don't provide service to that country, I don't provide service in an anonymous manner that makes it possible for users of that country to evade local law because I find the law may contain bad parts. Standing up for human rights isn't beyond your scope, nor is it beyond your influence. You can provide service in an anonymous manner that makes it possible for users of that country to evade local laws, you just choose not to. And look, we all have limited resources--I'm not saying you're obligated to help with every human rights issue that you come across. But it seems like you're saying that nobody should help people break local laws, even when those laws are unethical. And frankly, that makes you unethical. It's no inconvenience to you if I help Saudi Arabian gays hide their sexual orientation or help Russians criticize Putin. If you're trying to get other people who want to protect human rights to stop doing that, you're de-facto supporting those human rights violations, whether you explicitly agree with them or not. > What I'm not sure is whether you think of your influence on the subject as a sysadmin that actually wants to provide such services, or whether you think of it as some individual posturing, like a random citizen voicing their opinion on Israel v Palestina knowing full well you have no influence. Disingenuous nonsense. Certainly a lot of what is done in the name of human rights is ineffective. But I'm not even seeing any indication you care about human rights. Why should someone who does care about human rights be taking strategic notes from you?

volkl48 2mo ago

The US is not currently a signatory to that, just to note.