Hacker News Reader

Comment by maeon3 | Hacker News Reader

Wow, the justice system refuses to apply American law to a foreign company operating in a foreign nation, so what you do is go seize his person, and wait until he has an address in Prison, then presto! It's legal to apply American law to him.

Imagine if Iran had pulled a stunt like this to some female CEO of a major corporation was in violation of Sharia law for exposing skin. We can't imprison them while they live in the foreign land, so lets bring them here and then we can apply justice.

Am I missing something that makes this an ethical thing to do?

View on HN

>Am I missing something that makes this an ethical thing to do?

Because America.

This does seem to be a logical argument, these days. :/

Trying to pretend that their is some sort of consistent notion of justice or even ideology in America any more is , especially at the federal level, is just delusional. It's a bit like a company run by hyperactive sociopaths that changes priorities every day. America has become just a massive sea of "interests" and power swirling around like a tornado, occasionally flattening someone's house or life when the winds line up in that direction.

Don't forget my personal favourite, "It's ok to pervert justice since Dotcom is a bad guy!"

Exposing skin is pretty distant from what MegaUpload was accused of. (The validity of the charges is another matter, I just REALLY don't think it is correct to compare this to not pulling your hijab down far enough)

It's not distant at all... why is providing a forum for users to make bytes/information available to each other categorically more villainous than showing a little ankle? Only your cultural perspective makes a Sharia infraction less severe than vague IP transgressions.

Would editing the parent to say 'having sex with another man,' which is a capital offense, really change the substance of the argument?

The specific analogy aside, the fact is that the U.S. government is basically saying that no matter who you are, or where you are, if you violate American law you'll be brought to American justice, even if they have to drag you to America against your will first. If any other country in the world did this, there would be complete public outrage.

From my point of view, American copyright and patent laws are very, very wrong. They largely miss their intended purposes. What's more, apparently even non-Americans on the other side of the world are at risk of being the target of these legal shenanigans.

I cannot stress how RIDICULOUS I think this whole affair is.

It's as if the prosecutors figure that Megaupload operates on the Internet, therefore it's operating in America and is subject to American law... is this another example of people who do not understand how the Internet works making major decisions about the Internet and it's future?

People who are upset about the case in general seem to be determined to read more into this tiny development then there actually is. What they're saying is that just because you don't have an address doesn't mean we can't freeze your assets.

Consider a homeless person who had stolen money and kept it in a bank. Just because the government can't find the alleged thief and doesn't have an address for them shouldn't mean they can't freeze the account, allowing the thief to go on making withdrawls at ATMs around the world.

You are correct in assuming that I am upset about the case in general.

However your analogy assumes that the homeless person (Megaupload) is guilty of theft and lives in the U.S.

If this homeless person lives in another country and someone in America claims that this homeless person stole from them. Does the U.S. government even have the right to go and seize this homeless person's foreign assets?

Everyone seems to be conveniently forgetting that Megaupload has NOTHING to do with the United Stated except for operating on the Internet and not discriminating against U.S. customers.

"Does the U.S. government even have the right to go and seize this homeless person's foreign assets?"

I suppose it would depend on the treaties with have with where those assets are held.

Also freeze =/= seize. They are similar and rhyme but not identical.

"Everyone seems to be conveniently forgetting that Megaupload has NOTHING to do with the United Stated except for operating on the Internet and not discriminating against U.S. customers."

Are you telling me that I can sit in Nowhereistan, hack into bank accounts all over the world to steal that money, transfer it into my Nowhereistan accounts and I'm immune to all the world's governments even though they have a treaty with Nowhereistan?

I'm not saying you are immune. But if the judge ruling over the case throws it out before it gets to court then your assets should not remain frozen indefinitely out of spite.

Throws it out over a technicality in service because of a lack of address? We're back to the homeless thief with no address getting a free pass.

No, the homeless thief can be located in person, already within the US, and arrested by ordinary local police under ordinary local laws.

yes? why would/should it be otherwise?

if you try and use your money to travel out of Nowhereistan, then we got you, but so long as you haven't broken the laws of your own country, and you stay in your own country, you absolutely should be immune.

What other approach would make sense? Should you be able to be arrested in the US for acting contrary to laws passed in Pakistan?

The asset freecing is one thing, but trying to prosecute a company without an US address under US criminal law is much more troubling. If I have a personal blog, should it be possible to hold me accountable according to the criminal laws of every single country in the world? Obviously not, how could I possibly comply?

Now an internet company with customers around the world is different - but not so different that this should be possible under criminal law without a very clear pre-written law.

Its all point of view.

Violating religious law vs violating the property of private corporations?

There's no "religious" law in the context we're talking about.

In both cases it's just law, enacted and enforced by the government of each country.

And really, I suspect I've met some fundamentalist capitalists. "May Mammon bless our profits, and our capital, and our perfect markets. In St. Ayn's name, amen."

I'm not defending the action of our country but your analogy is way off. You're comparing two whole different scenarios. People around the world commit stuff all the time that would violate our laws but you never hear any cases like Kim's until today. Remember the reason Kim was brought to American justice system was because MPAA (American Company) alleges that MegaUpload caused over 500 million dollars in damages to their company. That's a large sum of money and if its in any other industry, any company would do the same.

Yeah, except the MPAA is allowed to pull its damage numbers from where the sun doesn't shine.

The analogy is not totally off at all. Read the other comments. It's just a matter of perspective.

Also, those are $500m in alleged damages. There's quite a bit of controversy over whether pirates are actually lost sales. Additionally, many people resort to pirated copies in order to carry out their own "try before you buy" shopping strategy. :P

The analogy is not totally off at all. Read the other comments. It's just a matter of perspective.

I don't agree. Without intending to defend the US government, Sharia Law (or Megaupload for that matter), there is a significant distinction between the two cases: that the MPAA feels Megaupload is harming them directly.

You may not agree that they're right about that. You may think the damages amounts are silly. You might even think that the idea that there are any damages at all is a sign that someone doesn't get the information revolution. Leave that aside.

The MPAA thinks Megaupload is harming them directly, a viewpoint the justice system seems to share.

So, a more direct analogy would be a country with excessive pollution. Or a country with a lot of drug cartels that exports illegal substances or crime. Or a country that trains terrorists.

I'm not saying the MPAA is right. I'm definitely not saying the DOJ is right. I am saying that this is the class of problem that people go to war over, and it's unfair to characterize it as anything else.

The analogy is pretty close. The Iranian mullahs would certainly feel that American corporations are polluting the minds of Iranian youth, harming them directly. So an equivalent American CEO might be Lori Greeley, CEO of Victoria's Secret.

Exactly. You don't have to be geographically present to "show skin". It's a 'crime' that works over the internet just as well as it works in meatspace.

I like the term "in meatspace". Haha! I think I've finally found a good replacement for "IRL".

Yeah, I use it because I rather dislike that phrase/acronym. ;)

Thanks for the idea. Be on the look out for a new social network Meatspace.com coming soon.

But whose the victim in this case? There's no monetary or physical damages in women showing skin. One law is based on belief and the other is in settling a somewhat reasonable claim.

There are no physical or direct monetary damages to the MPAA, either. Intellectual property is just as based on belief as the Iranian desire to maintain a pure culture.

True, though to the extent the mullahs believe that, they also want to blow us up.

What I'm really saying is this is more than disliking how a country on the other side of the globe does things. When citizens bicker with each other, you see one side of government. When foreigners harm citizens? You see a completely different side.

I'm not saying what the US did is right. But I am saying it is expected, given how they perceive the situation. Your-people-are-hurting-my-people is the sort of problem resolved with treaties, covert military action, or outright wars. Gloves come off as the government does what it has to to make it stop.

If you're the sort of person that thinks piracy doesn't hurt anyone, the situation is a tragic misunderstanding. But you can also expect more tragedy as a result of the misunderstanding because of the class of problem it is.

The MPAA thinks that Mega is harming them directly under US law. I'm sure that other entities of other countries feel similar about their own laws.

One scenario has a victim and the other is solely based on beliefs. The whole case with Megaupload is about the MPAA claiming that they are a victim of piracy. I understand that everyone has an different opinion on this case, that's why there is a case to begin with. IMO I don't believe that there should be a case to begin with but when there's half a billion dollars that is claimed as lost it's enough to look into it.

Both scenarios have victims, and both are solely based on beliefs.

+1, it's all a matter of perspective.

So the only thing that matters is how much is claimed ?

I mean, I could easily claim that my company has lost a full billion dollars because of the way you run your business.

Should that mean I should be able to get the our local cops to travel to your country, shut down your business, bring you back here to new zealand, put you in prison, and then charge you with a crime?

this thing is an absolute travesty for anyone who cares about justice, due process or the rule of law.

As far as I can see, the only thing more embarrassing than the way the USA has behaved in this case, is the way my country is doing its best to bare its buttocks to make the whole thing more comfortable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com