Comment by syshum | Hacker News Reader

Comment by syshum | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>>And your "only a matter of time" slippery slope has already happened: several EU nations have taken legal action against US-based online retail/auction sites to require compliance with laws against selling Nazi symbols or memorabilia. And I hope you'd understand that no matter how much you might argue "but I wasn't even in Germany", Germany will come after you if you offer to sell and ship items to Germany which are illegal to sell/ship there.

No that is infact not what my "slippery slope" argument is.. No where even remotely close to it

Shipping an item INTO the nation means clearly you must abide by their laws, what I am talking about would be Germany attempting to take legal action because I operate a website that has nazi symbols on it that a german person happens to visit.

>> There is nothing new, radical, revolutionary, terrifying, unprecedented, etc. about this idea.

Seems to me that there is since the US is not just prosecuting people for their direct actions against US Computers but seem to be going after people many many steps removed from those actions that have the thinnest of connections to US Interests. This seems to be new and radical and terrifying from my point of view

Do you support the US in doing this? You seem to imply you have no problems with the current state of affairs

So, let's just put it clearly: suppose someone who is, at the time, not physically present in the US, breaks into a computer system which is physically present in the US at that time. Which of the following do you think most accurately describes the situation?

1. No crime has been committed, because these actions took place on the internet, where no laws apply and no country has jurisdiction.

2. A crime may have been committed, but only if breaking into computer systems is against the law of the country the person was in at the time, and so only that country could prosecute.

3. A crime was committed in the United States, but the United States cannot prosecute someone for a crime if some element of that crime took place physically outside the borders of the United States.

4. A crime was committed in the United States, and the United States can prosecute the person responsible, and has the power either to arrest that person if they happen to visit the US voluntarily, or to extradite that person from the country they're in if an extradition treaty exists between the United States and that country.

The accepted view, for the record, is (4), and appears to be the basis of this case: the indictment claims computers physically located in the US were affected, which gives the US jurisdiction to arrest and prosecute.

>>So, let's just put it clearly: suppose someone who is, at the time, not physically present in the US, breaks into a computer system which is physically present in the US at that time.

So your strawman has nothing to do with the topic at hand

The US Government in this case is not claiming this person broke into any computer system, they are saying this person developed a tool that was then sold (outside the US) to others that then may have been used by unnamed 3rd parties to break into computers.

So to make up a true hypothetical, if a person A in Russia make a small computer program that cracks passwords. Then sells that computer program to person B in Russia, then person B uses that program to break into a US Computer, did person A break US law, and be charged under US Law?

I say no, you clearly believe yes.

The indictment seems to think he was a bit more involved than that.

What you seem to want him to be is, to spin out an analogy, an innocent shopkeeper who happens to sell sporting goods, and is now saddened to learn that someone bought a cricket bat from him and used it to beat someone up. The indictment is alleging something more like "Anybody here looking to beat someone up? I've got cricket bats that are great for this, and am happy to provide assistance and pointers and work with you as you choose who to beat up and how!"

Seriously, read the indictment. If they can prove he either was involved in deploying/using/explaining how to use the malware against specific US victims, or that he knew who the intended victims were and provided the malware for use against them with that knowledge, then he's dead to rights on a US charge.

>>Seriously, read the indictment.

I have, and to the extent a conspiracy occurred that conspiracy was completely in another nation so to apply this to your analogy if this shop selling cricket bats with a owner that provides pointers to beat people up with it is located outside the US, then the person they provided pointers to travels to the US to beat someone up do you still believe the shop keeper has violated US law?

I still do not

If the conspiracy was to break into or attack US computer systems, it's a crime the US has jurisdiction over.

If it had been a conspiracy to break into or attack French computer systems, France would have jurisdiction over it. If it were a conspiracy to break into or attack Mongolian computer systems, Mongolia would have jurisdiction over it.

I don't see anything unusual here.

4. but you need to understand a very significant different: they kept the warrant secret to ensnare him. If they issued a warrant and then he visited the USA and gets arrested -- that's stupid. But he had no idea, worse he couldn't have any idea. Do you get my problem here?

Plenty of people have warrants out against them that they don't know about. Lots of jurisdictions, including developed modern Western nations other than the US, don't send you warning in advance that you're going to be arrested. They just show up with the handcuffs.

On foreign soil? They set a warrant out for you waiting for you to travel there, kept in secret? Not sending it to the home authorities? What's wrong with this picture?

As hard as it may be for you to believe, police in many countries are generally not in the habit of warning people in advance that they're going to be arrested. I know it's rude of them since it may inconvenience someone's travel plans, but that's just kinda how it is.

The problem with all these approaches is that they sidestep what the internet is and isn't and change the rules as they see fit when they want a certain outcome.

If the internet is a digital territory made up of computer ETS, then we first have do solve the question of how to determine, who'se territory it is.

If it is only a communication tool to reach physical objects on a countries soil, then the usual treaties regulate a very different approach as the one taken.

Going back to the territory problem, a state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states. Good luck trying to use this on the internets.

State agents can't even identify themselves in a secure way so I could also nuke them virtually when they enter my virtual home... all the questions like taxation or citizen rights not even mentioned - you see the problems?!

States use arbitrary interpretations of clauses of often mutually exclusive treaties covering civil and criminal law to basically claim, that each one has dominion over all of the internets.

The real situation is more like international spaces, where states have some control over their systems, just like coastlines and out in the high seas it's everyone on it's own with the states neither willing nor able to enforce the rights of their citizens...

Ah, I see. You're going to derive a system contrary to Westphalian states from first principles in an effort to show why it's unjust that someone who hacks computers in Country A from Country B can be arrested and prosecuted by Country B, since the entire notion of state sovereignty is flawed!

Let me know when your treatise on this is finished.

Don't attack, just verify. The system is in place (hint: high seas), the states, especially those not in a state of denial of the applicability of international law, have to offer definitions for their regulations, especially those in Roman law countries, where the first section is always definitions... not doing so allows them to be challenged by other states.

In other news the kind of system you think is used is exactly why there ARE international treaties... to avoid those situations.

But perhaps you are right and we should have more cases based upon the Pinnochet precedent... e.g. Int. extradition of US border officials looking into protected communication a british lawyer takes to his client in the us - something that is prohibited and punishable both in civil and criminal law in most of the world?!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com