Hacker News Reader

Comment by iamnothere | Hacker News Reader

Vietnam has extremely strict laws about drugs, but they have the good sense to limit the applicability of those laws to Vietnamese soil. I have no problem traveling to Vietnam just because I might have once smoked a doobie in the US, because Vietnam also has no problem with that. While on VN soil, respect VN laws. Fine by me.

The UK on the other hand seems to have forgotten this basic, common approach to international relations and criminal jurisdiction, so if you work on any foreign technology or content that could be targeted by the UK government, it’s better to stay away.

(Yes I am aware that the US also doesn’t obey this principle, but that doesn’t make it right.)

View on HN

Ironically, as a UK citizen who may have once smoked a doobie, I could be prevented from entering the US, even though it is 'more legal' there than here. It hasn't stopped me before, of course; what's stopping me now is the current administration and a fear I may be abused by the US authorities for any manner of reasons (including none).

I find it interesting how the shrinking of the world via the internet may result in more international isolation because of conflicting online laws.

> even though it is 'more legal' there than here.

Using cannabis is 100% illegal in every part of the US. The idea that it’s legal in some states is a common misconception, but not true.

I (a layman) believe that part of the "global" scope of the law is to enable actions at home (and some pressure).

If they want to order ISPs to block services there needs to be some legal framework to do so. "We contacted them, they didn't respond, now we need to revert to blocking" sounds pretty convincing to me.

For your other argument I'll ask the question I ask anytime this comes up: How would you propose laws/regulations on online services are enforced if not (at least in principle) globally?

Order local ISPs to block the site, forbid companies and/or individuals with local presence from doing business with the site, or I dunno, maybe require everyone in the country to install an MITM cert like some backwater autocracy. Not really my problem how you want to run your own country. No country should have the right to enforce laws globally.

Most UK domestic ISP's are part of the IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) where your net passes through a transparent squid proxy. [0]

As well as "family friendly filters" that block rouge sites via their own DNS.

[0] https://www.blocked.org.uk/about

And if you're a person of interest your connection is routes through GCHQ Cheltenham.

So it wouldn't be to hard for Ofcom to apply a filter. If they did expect domestic ISPs will comply but hopefully independent ISPs won't.

Are you saying that if you sell drugs into Vietnam as the supplier and origin and person who profits, then you go there, they won’t arrest you?

If you forge Vietnamese money but you do it outside their border, they won’t arrest you if you go there because (from your other comment) “No country should have the right to enforce laws globally”?

This seems unlikely, and like you are cherry picking the UK because the example is digital and this is HN.

If I open a store in my home country where I sell goods that are legal (for me) and a citizen of a foreign country travels to me to purchase something that is illegal (for them), I should not be legally liable, no.

Whether that travel happens physically or digitally is of no concern to me.

I suppose you may make the argument that the internet is more like shipping a package than handing something over a counter to a traveler. I don’t think this applies. At most it’s like the customer sends a neutral intermediary to make a purchase/pickup, where that intermediary tells me nothing about the customer except a vague idea of their location (which may be inaccurate). In this case it’s the intermediary, or one of the many intermediaries in the chain, who actually “imports” the item.

If you want to block content, start there with the “importer”. China already understands this well, I don’t know why the UK hasn’t caught on other than a desire to force its own local standards on Americans. We won’t stand for it.

(Your example about forged currency is as absurd as an example about nuclear weapons or attempting to organize revolution. Yes, some things cross the threshold into a critical economic/military issue and all bets are off at that point.)

Running a website that distributes information is not the same as selling drugs. That's why free speech is a right and free drugs are not.

And, yes, there are some types of speech (libel, for instance) that merit special scrutiny. A web forum does not. It is literally just an online conversation—the very definition of protected speech.

For the UK to impose these restrictions within its own borders is already unacceptable. For them to play at imposing them on people in other countries is worse still. If they're serious about this, they should suck it up and proactively block websites from abroad that violate their guidelines. Vague threats of punishments without prior warning are ridiculous.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com