[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?