[Cody-99]

I'll never understand why people think being across the globe matters. Basically all internet crime can be done across the globe (plus tons of other types of crime like drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, etc).

Being in a different country doesn't give you free reign to commit crime.

[danpalmer]

The problem is that it sort of does. It shouldn't, but laws are fundamentally based around physical locations and no one has really resolved what it means to commit a crime in a different jurisdiction than the one you're physically in. Sure there are extradition treaties, but those are far more malleable and operate at a much higher level, turning what would be a mundane crime into a nation state level concern.

I don't think there's a good solution here. Obviously the police of one country turning up and arresting people in another is a non-starter. The best option is probably just countries agreeing on the same important laws (e.g. it's rare for extradition for murder to be controversial), but copyright infringement is viewed very differently around the world, and the US has rightly struggled to exert its own opinions on this topic on other nation states.

[tiahura]

Actually, jurisdiction is not solely based on physical location but fundamentally on the power and authority to enforce laws. While geographic boundaries are significant, they are not the only factor determining jurisdiction. Countries often assert extraterritorial jurisdiction, especially when crimes committed abroad have substantial effects within their own territory or involve their nationals.

[danpalmer]

This is my point, that asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction is up to agreements between countries, and not laws within one country. These agreements are fundamentally political and at the whim of both countries involved. They are not a simple police matter as they would be if the crime took place within one country.

[edmundsauto]

> laws are fundamentally based around physical locations and no one has really resolved what it means to commit a crime in a different jurisdiction than the one you're physically in.

I don’t think this is accurate, wire fraud is literally named after reaching across jurisdictions to commit crimes via telegraph wire. What is t resolved is when there is no escalation path.

[thaumasiotes]

> wire fraud is literally named after reaching across jurisdictions to commit crimes via telegraph wire

The minor error here is that wire fraud isn't literally named after crossing jurisdictions; there's nothing stopping a wire from having both its endpoints in the same state.

The major error is that while you're correct that wire fraud has to cross jurisdictions because of certain legal boondoggles, it isn't a crime in any of the jurisdictions it crosses. Only in the ur-jurisdiction superior to both of them.

[danpalmer]

I think you might be thinking of US states, which is a bit of a special case. I believe wire fraud in the US is a federal crime because it can easily cross US-state boundaries.

Ignoring US peculiarity here, if you commit fraud online against someone from one country, when you're in a country where that is not fraud, that's something that would need to rely on extradition treaties. You haven't committed a crime at home where you were so police aren't going to come and arrest you unless the country you committed the crime against convinces them to do so.

[edmundsauto]

This was a similar situation before US states figured out the federal escalation policy. And, with abortion access, it is also a front and center issue again. I’m unconvinced by your dismissal - how is it different, except lacking an escalation path to resolve it?

[diggan]

> Being in a different country doesn't give you free reign to commit crime.

"Crime" is something that means different things in different countries. Or rather, what is illegal differs between countries.

I think what parent is trying to call out unfair, is someone getting arrested in one country where something isn't necessarily proven to be illegal, then taken to a different country and prosecuted there, even if you're not actively involved with that country. Things like drug trafficking arrests are made by either the receiving/sending side (either way, local border control and/or anti-narcotics police) of that particular transaction, not by some other party half-way across the globe, because it isn't really their responsibility.

But then I'm sure you can make the argument that because somewhere, somehow, Kim Dotcom touched USD and/or US movie studios so the US has "right" to make whatever he did their business.

[Cody-99]

>"Crime" is something that means different things in different countries.

Which is why countries only extradite for things that are crimes in both countries. Which is what happened here.

[southernplaces7]

It's easy to just declare something "crime" and then claim justification for anything you do to prosecute it, but the strategy is also often a moral sewer of corrupt interests and mendacity.

If you think that the sort of "crime" that Dotcom committed justified all the measures taken against him, especially given the kind of reprehensible corporate interests working behind these measures for their own entirely self serving extremes, then maybe you should more closely examine how you define your morality on crime.

[buzzerbetrayed]

So the US should just be able to make laws for citizens of other countries?

[zdragnar]

If an alleged crime affects someone or some company in another country, that country has the right to request extradition to force the accused to stand trial. That's the whole point of extradition treaties.

It has nothing to do with the US uniquely, nor is it about one country making laws for citizens of a different country.

[qup]

Or the EU can make me click cookies banners the rest of my life

[Ylpertnodi]

Or, US companies can stop tracking us. Also, there are several add-ons that will assist with hiding the cookie info.

[123yawaworht456]

half the things you've said and done on the internet were probably illegal in russia/china/best korea/iran/random shithole.

[kome]

why should one jurisdiction be above another? what even is the jurisdiction of the internet? sorry, but your answer is just out of touch

[ChumpGPT]

NZ isn't some 3rd world country where someone who broke the law can flee. There are plenty of cases where a non-citizen breaks US Law (ex: Sanctions) and is arrested outside of the USA.

The United States and New Zealand have a number of agreements in place to fight crime and are both are members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance.

[kome]

sorry but this makes no sense: if you infrange a US law, but you neither are a US resident or citizen, or you never even been there, why this law should apply to you?

perhaps nz is indeed a US protectorate if it allows this

[beala]

What part of this situation implies one jurisdiction is above another? This is happening because New Zealand has an extradition treaty with the US that they mutually agreed to.

[kome]

in this case US law is clearly superior because the guy is not a US citizen, the "crime" wasn't even committed in the US and yet he is extradited, or better say, moved there for what reasons? infringement of us law

[bdangubic]

fairly soon it will be illegal to stream pornography in the United States, wanna be arrested for looking at PH for 20 seconds while in some free country like China? :)

[buzzerbetrayed]

When exactly will it be illegal to stream porn in the US?

[ojbyrne]

Presumably referring to Project 2025. So 2025?

[bdangubic]

it already is in some states and soon it will be federal thing. In Virginia for instance, while technically not illegal, no major pornography website operates. soon there will be prison sentences if you do and NZ will be extrading people for looking at boobs :) cause you know - jurisdiction and all that jazz…

elections have consequences…