4 ms·

Fallacies. Fallacies everywhere! Fact of the matter is, with the internet becoming such an important part of our lives so quickly laws haven't had a chance to

by TheCapn 13y ago

Fallacies. Fallacies everywhere! Fact of the matter is, with the internet becoming such an important part of our lives so quickly laws haven't had a chance to catch up. For the most part, DOJ and other countries interpret the laws as "if you are effecting people/business on our soil then you are accountable to our laws". Is that right? Probably not, but it isn't 100% wrong either. America is quickly converting its livelihood such that its chief export will be intellectual property. They, rightfully, should be defending themselves in any legal way they can. Until we correct the way laws are written they'll continue to interpret them to the way they see fit. But then we have everyone here taking things to the extreme. What if I break some obscure law in some backwater land unknown to the majority of the world? Do you think they have jurisdiction granted to them by your government? Usually these things are part of a deal of friendship between governments as US and Australia would make deals with each other as there are mutual advantages to it. Would America cut deals with North Korea to hand you over for some obscure law? I'm betting no. Don't forget, there are people behind these decisions and although they may seem asinine at times they are still logical beings capable of rational thought. It just pains me to see the article and want to discuss it intellectually on HN but all I find is fear mongering, straw men and countless other fallacies that don't really strengthen their point. I don't care whether you agree/disagree with the ruling/courts as written, I care to have a discussion or see good points on either side of the debate, not hogwash vomited forth for emotionally charged arguments.

jetti 13y ago
The problem I see with this is that one doesn't need to agree to be bound by the social contract of an individual government to be prosecuted. In the physical world, if you don't agree to the laws of a country, don't live there. It is that simple. In our digital world, people from all over the world can connect to my website even if that isn't my intention. It would be incredibly hard to block all users from a certain country from accessing my website or using my service, especially if I don't require any payments. Also, what extent does "effecting people/business on our soil then you are accountable to our laws" pertain to somebody. If I have information that is legal in my country but then somebody uses that information to harm somebody in their country, am I accountable? After all, without the information from my site, perhaps this individual wouldn't have harmed anybody. I wonder if other countries could start using the US's liberal interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act against the US citizens/residents to protect their site. If a website puts in their Terms of Service that the site is only for non-United States residents only, would that rid them of this responsibility? If somebody from the US visits the site and the DoJ believes that the site is effecting the people/business on their soil and that the company should be held accountable then the company could have the DoJ prosecute the user based on the Terms of Use violation.
- mrgoldenbrown 13y ago
  "Don't live there" is NOT that simple in the real world. How many people in North Korea want to live there? China? Germany during WW2? I'd guess that the majority of the world's population does not have a realistic chance to change what country they live in.
  - jetti 13y ago
    I don't think I was clear with my comment on the simplicity. What I meant was that the solution to avoid the laws of a certain country is simple, leaving as not being in a physical jurisdiction prevents you from being held accountable (pre-internet). I realize that the task of leaving a country isn't simple nor is it something to be taken lightly.
- ahallock 13y ago
  > In the physical world, if you don't agree to the laws of a country, don't live there. It is that simple. No, it's not that simple. Your statement shows no empathy and lacks context. Is it that simple to leave North Korea? If I tried to leave the US now, they'd shoot me. I'd need to have arrangement with the country I'm immigrating to, pay a bunch of fees, etc. And why should I, a peaceful human being, have to leave when a single entity claims such vast areas of land? It's unfair and people's blind (probably tribalistic) acceptance of that idea is sad.
  - jetti 13y ago
    I never suggested people do that, I'm saying that that is the only surefire way (for the most part) to escape the laws in the country that you are currently in. If you live in a country, it is generally expected you follow those laws. That is my point, not "love it or leave it". I apologize that it came off that way.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > Also, what extent does "effecting people/business on our soil then you are accountable to our laws" pertain to somebody. If I have information that is legal in my country but then somebody uses that information to harm somebody in their country, am I accountable? After all, without the information from my site, perhaps this individual wouldn't have harmed anybody. The example you give ("without the information from my site...") is what's called a "but for" test. That is not the test for effects in this context. The test has an intent element. Not only must your actions have some effect in a different jurisdiction, but you must have at some level intended them to.
rz2k 13y ago
Unfortunately this case serves as a proxy for so many other issues that it is difficult to discuss the challenges of geography and jurisdiction on their own. It can go the other way, too. Recently, the Supreme Court uncharacteristically upheld state protectionism in the case of Virginia's Freedom of Information Act only requiring the release of information to Virginia residents.[1] The arguments include obtuse statements by the usual suspects, but an interesting part of the law includes an exception for journalism that circulate Virginia.[2] The law did not address whether that includes every news source that publishes online. [1] https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/sjs/a-reivew-of-oral-arguments-in-mcburney-v-young-state-foia-and-state-rights/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/sjs/a-reivew-of-oral-argu... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-says-states-may-bar-information-requests-from-nonresidents/2013/04/29/37d41134-b105-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-says-st...

by TheCapn 13y ago

jetti 13y ago

The problem I see with this is that one doesn't need to agree to be bound by the social contract of an individual government to be prosecuted. In the physical world, if you don't agree to the laws of a country, don't live there. It is that simple. In our digital world, people from all over the world can connect to my website even if that isn't my intention. It would be incredibly hard to block all users from a certain country from accessing my website or using my service, especially if I don't require any payments. Also, what extent does "effecting people/business on our soil then you are accountable to our laws" pertain to somebody. If I have information that is legal in my country but then somebody uses that information to harm somebody in their country, am I accountable? After all, without the information from my site, perhaps this individual wouldn't have harmed anybody. I wonder if other countries could start using the US's liberal interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act against the US citizens/residents to protect their site. If a website puts in their Terms of Service that the site is only for non-United States residents only, would that rid them of this responsibility? If somebody from the US visits the site and the DoJ believes that the site is effecting the people/business on their soil and that the company should be held accountable then the company could have the DoJ prosecute the user based on the Terms of Use violation.

mrgoldenbrown 13y ago
"Don't live there" is NOT that simple in the real world. How many people in North Korea want to live there? China? Germany during WW2? I'd guess that the majority of the world's population does not have a realistic chance to change what country they live in.
- jetti 13y ago
  I don't think I was clear with my comment on the simplicity. What I meant was that the solution to avoid the laws of a certain country is simple, leaving as not being in a physical jurisdiction prevents you from being held accountable (pre-internet). I realize that the task of leaving a country isn't simple nor is it something to be taken lightly.
ahallock 13y ago
> In the physical world, if you don't agree to the laws of a country, don't live there. It is that simple. No, it's not that simple. Your statement shows no empathy and lacks context. Is it that simple to leave North Korea? If I tried to leave the US now, they'd shoot me. I'd need to have arrangement with the country I'm immigrating to, pay a bunch of fees, etc. And why should I, a peaceful human being, have to leave when a single entity claims such vast areas of land? It's unfair and people's blind (probably tribalistic) acceptance of that idea is sad.
- jetti 13y ago
  I never suggested people do that, I'm saying that that is the only surefire way (for the most part) to escape the laws in the country that you are currently in. If you live in a country, it is generally expected you follow those laws. That is my point, not "love it or leave it". I apologize that it came off that way.
rayiner 13y ago
> Also, what extent does "effecting people/business on our soil then you are accountable to our laws" pertain to somebody. If I have information that is legal in my country but then somebody uses that information to harm somebody in their country, am I accountable? After all, without the information from my site, perhaps this individual wouldn't have harmed anybody. The example you give ("without the information from my site...") is what's called a "but for" test. That is not the test for effects in this context. The test has an intent element. Not only must your actions have some effect in a different jurisdiction, but you must have at some level intended them to.

rz2k 13y ago

Unfortunately this case serves as a proxy for so many other issues that it is difficult to discuss the challenges of geography and jurisdiction on their own. It can go the other way, too. Recently, the Supreme Court uncharacteristically upheld state protectionism in the case of Virginia's Freedom of Information Act only requiring the release of information to Virginia residents.[1] The arguments include obtuse statements by the usual suspects, but an interesting part of the law includes an exception for journalism that circulate Virginia.[2] The law did not address whether that includes every news source that publishes online. [1] https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/sjs/a-reivew-of-oral-arguments-in-mcburney-v-young-state-foia-and-state-rights/ https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/sjs/a-reivew-of-oral-argu... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-says-states-may-bar-information-requests-from-nonresidents/2013/04/29/37d41134-b105-11e2-bbf2-a6f9e9d79e19_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-says-st...