zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. bigbad+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-10-01 03:31:37
> But if you're trying to make money through your website... well sorry you're doing business in those countries.

Say, I'm the provider... well sorry, you (the customer) are doing business with a foreign country (mine) and you should do it in accordance with YOUR laws about YOUR country's foreign trade.

That's the only way to properly conform to jurisdiction, amirite?

In other words, UK has no jurisdiction over US businesses who conduct business from US soil, UK cannot force them to obey UK law just because a UK citizen decided to buy something over the internet. The UK can punish THEIR citizens for what the UK considers unlawful trades and that's always the case no matter what.

Claiming jurisdiction over foreign businesses ends up in a completely lunatic situation where every business, in every country, has to obey the laws of every other country just because some people might decide to order from abroad. Block, ban, punish only where you have jurisdiction, everything else ends up in sheer insanity.

replies(3): >>bdangu+a2 >>riffra+G7 >>ascorb+Xb
2. bdangu+a2[view] [source] 2025-10-01 04:01:03
>>bigbad+(OP)
I love this idea of businesses doing and selling whatever the F they want and citizens being punished based on laws in their country. not sure why US businesses even have to obey US laws?!? just punish the consumers/citizens and be done with it

of course defining what “US” business is might be quite challenging, is Apple a US company?! They make nothing in the US and pay no taxes in the US … love this idea though!

replies(1): >>bigbad+27
◧◩
3. bigbad+27[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-10-01 05:09:19
>>bdangu+a2
> not sure why US businesses even have to obey US laws

Because there are laws for US businesses over which the US government has jurisdiction.

> just punish the consumers/citizens and be done with it.

That happens too, when consumers break the laws that apply to them. In the case of international transactions, the law has to account for the pesky jurisdiction:

It's nothing new, when travelers/consumers go through the customs, THEY are responsible for the goods they import, NOT the party that sold those goods to them! That's the only sane way to do it and it's an established practice, there's no reason to do it differently when a consumer imports something using the internet!

> of course defining what “US” business is might be quite challenging, is Apple a US company?!

Yes it is, also, Apple's branches in other countries are companies under the jurisdiction of those other countries. It's not that complicated.

replies(1): >>bdangu+CG
4. riffra+G7[view] [source] 2025-10-01 05:15:46
>>bigbad+(OP)
> That's the only way to properly conform to jurisdiction, amirite?

No, you're not? It's pretty obvious that if you try to, say, sell illegal drugs to my citizens, I as a country will come after you even if it's legal on your side.

The internet blurred the lines because you don't "show up" in the buyer's country but there's nothing new here: both seller and buyer need to respect the law.

replies(2): >>colech+E42 >>accoun+Vve
5. ascorb+Xb[view] [source] 2025-10-01 05:59:58
>>bigbad+(OP)
OK, but that's not true, pretty much anywhere. If it's illegal to provide a service to people in a country, it's illegal wherever your site is based. It may be hard to enforce, and in most cases the authorities won't try, but if it's serious enough then they totally will. This is the same basis for extraditing people who sell rootkits or CSAM, or for when the US imprisoned the bosses of European gambling companies on charges of providing services to US customers. BetOnSports was a listed companies in London, and sports betting is legal in the UK. Didn't stop the US authorities arresting and imprisoning the CEO for years when he took a flight that connected via Dallas. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8339338.stm)
replies(1): >>aydyn+ld
◧◩
6. aydyn+ld[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-10-01 06:14:52
>>ascorb+Xb
In other words, might makes right. Law is only as valid as the implied violence if you break it.
◧◩◪
7. bdangu+CG[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-10-01 11:50:24
>>bigbad+27
> Because there are laws for US businesses over which the US government has jurisdiction.

but why we have laws at all? if the US business can do whatever the F they want in UK why not in US too?

◧◩
8. colech+E42[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-10-01 19:14:04
>>riffra+G7
The thing about the Internet is it made cross-border interactions common and trivial.

If party A and B are interacting in jurisdictions A and B, which party has to abide by which jurisdiction's laws?

Is the consumer moving into the producer's jurisdiction or is the producer moving into the consumer's jurisdiction?

Laws tend to apply more to the business than the consumer around the world and it's probably fair that this remains to be true, but really it is a hard problem when to parties separated by a border are just sending messages back and forth and you're trying to figure out who has to follow which laws.

◧◩
9. accoun+Vve[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-10-06 10:24:07
>>riffra+G7
The only thing the internet did is allow politicians to ignore the reality: Any business over the internet involving your country still includes people under the jurisdiction of that country, whether that's delivery services, financial services, advertisers or ISPs. That's where a country can enforce its laws.
[go to top]