Hacker News Reader

Comment by Steko | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com