341–350 of 418 posts
[flagged]
You're saying that the UK's porn laws are "actively attacking the sovereignty" of the US in a way that is comparable to breaking a military alliance. Do I have that right? Further, you're implying this activity is NOT something that the US has historically and regularly done to other countries, including its allies in NATO?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, no, it attempts to compel foreign banks, which may not even have a presence in the US, to disclose information about US citizens, using various threats. It doesn't threaten to throw foreigners in jail , but it does threaten to use US government "clout" against them... and the actors it's trying to put obligations on are absolutely not US citizens.
Funny how you make tax evasion and money laundering on par with political speech. Fighting for your rights to be corrupt is a pretty weird take. If we can talk someone into doing what we want, that's perfectly legal as long as we or they aren't violating any laws. And nobody complains because getting dirty banks to spill is in everyone's best interests. Remember how happy everyone was at all the FIFA corruption data…
Sadly a lot of Americans hear "foreign bank account" and immediately think "tax evasion" without realizing there are a lot of ordinary Americans overseas who just want to pay the rent and save for retirement but can't because Uncle Sam follows us wherever we go for life.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preston talks about this in an earlier blog post. It's a matter of UK law and, I'd bet, many countries, that they have the sovereign right to legislate about matters in and outside their borders. "If Parliament says smoking in Paris is illegal, it is illegal." What's different today than when that doctrine was conceived of is: data goes everywhere, communications are decentralized, international cooperation around es…
> It's a matter of UK law and, I'd bet, many countries, that they have the sovereign right to legislate about matters in and outside their borders. Basically all countries take that position legally. But there are norms and customs about how often you exercise it (as well as practical questions of power). Extraterritorial regulation of Web sites is unfortunately in the process of being established as normal, but it's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, but I feel like the UK government hasn't thought this matter through. Think about what happens if the US decides it can enforce US law on UK soil against UK citizens. The main industry of the UK is questionable international finance using legal fictions on various islands. What happens when the US decides that that shouldn't be happening anymore? Its the same logic OfCom is using here. And unlike the UK governmen…
> Think about what happens if the US decides it can enforce US law on UK soil against UK citizens. The US has asserted that right globally for quite some time, and literally threatened force against other countries to get them to actively support (not merely tacitly permit) such enforcement, even when it directly violated the constitutions of the countries involved (as well as simply doing armed enforcement without c…
You shouldn't even be expected to geoblock. If I'm operating a Web site in country A, I should not have to care about country B's laws unless I am taking specific action intended to attract users in country B in particular . That's doesn't mean just to target the whole world, either. If you don't want your citizens to access something in another country, take it up with your citizens. It was obvious from the minute t…
Preston talks about this in an earlier blog post. It's a matter of UK law and, I'd bet, many countries, that they have the sovereign right to legislate about matters in and outside their borders. "If Parliament says smoking in Paris is illegal, it is illegal." What's different today than when that doctrine was conceived of is: data goes everywhere, communications are decentralized, international cooperation around es…
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the entire founding political mythology of the United States is pretty much "The Parliament of the UK tried to regulate our freedom of speech without even giving us a vote, and that was intolerable." Specifically, the Stamp Act was seen as suppressing the right of the American colonies to engage in political speech. (This wasn't the only reason for the Revolutionary War, but it's one of the ones we still remember. We remember it in part because laws regulating the publishers of political pamphlets get complained about in political pamphlets.)
This isn't a political issue in the normal sense. It's more like Guy Fawkes and the "gunpowder treason and plot." The one thing that the "Tea Party" and the "No Kings" protestors can probably still agree about is that the Stamp Act was bad, because this issue is part of the fundamental political mythology of the country. "The British Parliament does not get to regulate our speech" is right up there with "The President does not get to wear a crown."
This is not a fight that the UK government can actually win, not in the long run. Any US politician who allows Parliament to regulate the speech of a US citizen will find themselves in the awkward position of British politician who proposed a national monument to Guy Fawkes. Allowing this is "Un-American" in these sense that it goes almost directly against our founding patriotic mythology and symbolism.
The UK should just accept the geo-IP block of the UK as a compromise, and walk away. This particular fight isn't worth it. Trust me on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a matter of UK law and, I'd bet, many countries, that they have the sovereign right to legislate about matters in and outside their borders. Basically all countries take that position legally. But there are norms and customs about how often you exercise it (as well as practical questions of power). Extraterritorial regulation of Web sites is unfortunately in the process of being established as normal, but it's…
What happens if two foreign countries try to impose mutually exclusive laws?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Preston talks about this in an earlier blog post. It's a matter of UK law and, I'd bet, many countries, that they have the sovereign right to legislate about matters in and outside their borders. "If Parliament says smoking in Paris is illegal, it is illegal." What's different today than when that doctrine was conceived of is: data goes everywhere, communications are decentralized, international cooperation around es…
Ok, but I feel like the UK government hasn't thought this matter through. Think about what happens if the US decides it can enforce US law on UK soil against UK citizens. The main industry of the UK is questionable international finance using legal fictions on various islands. What happens when the US decides that that shouldn't be happening anymore? Its the same logic OfCom is using here. And unlike the UK governmen…
The USA has been doing this for a long time e.g. Wikileaks and Julian Assange, Kim Dotcom etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As long as you don't set foot on British soil you'll be fine. But that's less simple than it sounds. Don't book a flight that connects in the UK, sure. But what if your NYC-to-Munich flight has engine trouble and needs to make an emergency landing in London? You are screwed: You'll be pulled off the plane and taken to jail. Will the US embassy get involved? Of course. Will they get you released? Maybe, but it's not g…
The UK knows their place. They could do that but they won't. Also, they'll have trouble even finding who the business operator is. The US allows pseudonymous business structures and their subpoena request will be thrown out on a 1st amendment defense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a matter of UK law and, I'd bet, many countries, that they have the sovereign right to legislate about matters in and outside their borders. Basically all countries take that position legally. But there are norms and customs about how often you exercise it (as well as practical questions of power). Extraterritorial regulation of Web sites is unfortunately in the process of being established as normal, but it's…
What happens if two foreign countries try to impose mutually exclusive laws?
They now seem to have backtracked on that and are using either the country the request came from or the country the account was set up from (both using IP geolocation)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should ask AI go give you a long list of people who were arrested/captured/kidnapped/killed by the USA for the things they did outside of the US. Often, without doing anything illegal (locally, but sometimes even by US law). Guantanamo bay exists outside of the US territory for a reason, so that no legal rules would apply. CIA/USA has been keeping secret prisons and torturing people all around the world (incl. EU…
[flagged]