[Trinidad]

 gwnn, on 2015-May-29, 13:01, said:

What if the crime I commit is done on an airplane that is above the North Pole at the time I commit it? No jurisdiction at all?

Jurisdiction (and sovereignty) are important principles. That is why jurisdiction has been defined incredibly clearly internationally. (There are few things that virtually all countries agree on so well.)

To take your example of an airplane flying over the North Pole: Jurisdiction has been defined. It is not Denmark, Norway, Russia, or Canada. It is the country where the air plane belongs (is registered). So it could be Japan or the USA, or the Netherlands. But it would be clear which one it was.

Rik

[Trinidad]

 gwnn, on 2015-May-29, 13:01, said:

OK I guess I have to spell it out for you: Liberland is not a proper country (it is a bit of unclaimed land between Serbia and Croatia). It has no laws. I was simply asking what you thought about crimes done on no man's land, since in your view where your feet are is such an important criterion apparently.

If Liberland has no laws, then how is it possible to commit a crime over there? You can defraud whoever you like from Liberland. It is not illegal. And it is nobody else's GDB to think anything of that, if the people of Liberland (1 person IIRC) have decided that.

Rik

[PhilKing]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2814362/

Tim Roth, Sam Neill, Gerard Depardieu - what were you thinking?

[gwnn]

 Trinidad, on 2015-May-30, 00:08, said:

If Liberland has no laws, then how is it possible to commit a crime over there? You can defraud whoever you like from Liberland. It is not illegal. And it is nobody else's GDB to think anything of that, if the people of Liberland (1 person IIRC) have decided that.

Rik

I was thinking about something like someone stealing money from US accounts (or Dutch ones if you like) online, pressing Enter in Liberland, which has no government recognized by anyone, or on an unclaimed island. If they do money laundering using American bank accounts but press Enter only outside any state, they are completely off the hook?

Thanks for the clarification on the airplane case, I should have looked that up myself.

All of this may be beside the point of course since the DoJ also claims that a lot of the fraudulent deals have been agreed to in the US (Putin thinks that "it's clear that" nothing actually happened on US soil but I don't know how he can know that for sure since he doesn't even know what happened, just says that "whatever did happen, happened outside"). I don't know where the suspects were when they pressed Enter but it seems strange to say that that is the only thing that counts.

[kenberg]

I see the issue as follows:

We all agree it is good to catch bad guys. People in law enforcement are paid to do this and it is absolutely natural that they will use all of the tools at their disposal to do so. It's up to well-intentioned people not directly involved either as perpetrators or as apprehenders to set the parameters on what is and hat is not legit. The views of the FBI Director, quoted earlier in post 28, were very expansive. You don't have to be either pro-American or anti-American to be concerned here.

The problem is that if rules can be stretched to punish the bad guys, these same rules can be stretched in the same way to punish someone whose only transgression was to aggravate someone in power.

For example: On this thread, people have made comments about Qatar and comments about FIFA. Maybe the comments about Qatar are a hanging offense (ok, probably not but you get the point) in Qatar and the comments about FIFA are subject to libel laws somewhere (this may well be so). I would be opposed to extraditing these posters.

It's a new world out there, and I am far from certain what the rules are or what they should be.

I do get the idea, in this case, that at least some of the charges refer to what has taken place in Miami, in New York, and in boardrooms of US corporations. That's certainly fair game for the FBI.

[hrothgar]

Does anyone dispute that using branches of US chartered banks that are located within the United States to launder money is a violation of US laws?

If not, why there any argument about jurisdiction?

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2015-May-30, 08:28, said:

Does anyone dispute that using US chartered banks located within the United States to launder money is a violation of US laws?
If not, why there an argument about jurisdiction?

That would seem to do it, as would the fact that offenses (added: alleged offenses, here in the US we can say almost anything as long as wed preface it with alleged) took place in New York and Miami. I was more concerned with the FBI guy's idea that if you use the internet you are subject to prosecution. Or "if you touch our shores", a rather open ended criterion. I expect, or at least I hope, that the legal case will be tight here.

I have stayed out of trouble, mostly anyway, by having a decent intuitive grasp of what is acceptable here in the US. There are few if any laws that I know in any detail. When abroad, I watch myself a bit more, not because the laws are necessarily more stringent but because I don't have a good feel for them.

As we all become international, I am going to have to revise my thinking, perhaps.

[Cyberyeti]

There are some cases where I really dislike the US reach into the outside world. An example being an internet service legal in the country in which it's hosted, illegal in the US that some US people sign up to. The executives of the UK company who've never set foot in the US or deliberately done business there then get extradited under a provision that when it was passed we were assured would only be used for terrorism offences.

In this case, there are clear US links and I have no issue with the US taking the lead where other countries fear to tread.

http://www.usatoday....-vote/28126493/

Meanwhile, the story above amused me greatly.

[Trinidad]

 hrothgar, on 2015-May-30, 08:28, said:

Does anyone dispute that using branches of US chartered banks that are located within the United States to launder money is a violation of US laws?

I certainly don't.

 hrothgar, on 2015-May-30, 08:28, said:

If not, why there any argument about jurisdiction?

Because, as I understood it, the arrests where made under a law that deems it sufficient that the crime has "some link" (e.g. use of internet provider, etc.) to the USA for the USA to have jurisdiction.

I don't want any country to have jurisdiction over what I am doing, other than the country where I am doing it.

This means that for what I type on BBF right now from my living room,

• I could (in theory) be prosecuted in the Netherlands,
  
• BBO can ban me,
  
• my Dutch internet provider can refuse to serve me,
  
• Microsoft can revoke the software license (I am using explorer),
  
• but the US government (or that of Iran, North Korea or Senegal) has nothing to do with it.

Rik

[hrothgar]

 Trinidad, on 2015-May-30, 11:35, said:

Because, as I understood it, the arrests where made under a law that deems it sufficient that the crime has "some link" (e.g. use of internet provider, etc.) to the USA for the USA to have jurisdiction.

I don't want any country to have jurisdiction over what I am doing, other than the country where I am doing it.

Arguably, if you are using servers that are based in the US, you are doing something in the US.

With this said and done, there were a lot of charges leveled against the individuals who are being extradited to the US.
I doubt that the claims about use of an ISP would have been sufficient in and of themselves.

[gwnn]

 Trinidad, on 2015-May-29, 12:54, said:

They cannot prosecute you for things that Americans consider crimes when you perpetrated these acts in Liberland. The fact that you used an American account, or an American car, or a Yankees baseball bat does not change that.

OK am I misreading this or are you changing your position now?

I guess 90% of our argument boiled down to "internet account" vs "bank account." I was talking about the latter and you about the former.

[mike777]

Not exactly sure where an internet account is located. Some posters seem to feel it is located in one exact GPS location and only one. NOt sure that is true.

Sort of like asking where exactly is my money located at a large bank. It may be in several places under several diff set of laws.

IN any event as I suggested not sure it is best that the USA takes the LEAD to clean up FIFA as soccer is not really our sport. Will not be surprised if in few months, many fans feel the USA is the bad guy here rather than FIFA who they will forgive and forget.

[barmar]

 mike777, on 2015-May-30, 13:26, said:

Not exactly sure where an internet account is located. Some posters seem to feel it is located in one exact GPS location and only one. NOt sure that is true.

Sort of like asking where exactly is my money located at a large bank. It may be in several places under several diff set of laws.

IN any event as I suggested not sure it is best that the USA takes the LEAD to clean up FIFA as soccer is not really our sport. Will not be surprised if in few months, many fans feel the USA is the bad guy here rather than FIFA who they will forgive and forget.

IANAL, but my guess is that if you commit a crime in a physical location, like a robbery in a bank branch, it's the location of the branch that sets the jurisdiction. If you commit it electronically against a corporation, I suspect you'd go by the state of incorporation.

[kenberg]

I feel that to some extent I know most of you and I am guessing that the overall agreement is broader than it might appear.

1. I doubt anyone is shedding tears over FIFA.

2. Law enforcement agencies can get out of control.

As usual, analogies are risky but this brings to mind Bobby Kenned versus the Teamsters in the early 60s. Bobby was AG, Jimmy Hoffa was head of the Teamsters, Kennedy really wante to put Hoffa in jail Hoffa would taunt him. Something like "They investigated Hoffa, they interrogated Hoffa, they got nothing". Not an exact quote, but yes, he did speak of himself in the third person. No one felt all that sorry for Hoffa, he probably belonged in jail, but more than a few of us noted that we really hoped RFK never focused his sights on us. I don't even know how to launder money, but I must have done something sometime somehow.

Big organizations, national or especially international, have big muscle, legal and otherwise, so bringing them to heel is never going to be pretty. So stuff happens. Still, we need to be cautious in giving power to someone who, if they go after you, might find some very innovative ways to put you in jail. I don't think this is paranoia, or at least not entirely.

[hrothgar]

 barmar, on 2015-May-30, 14:16, said:

IANAL, but my guess is that if you commit a crime in a physical location, like a robbery in a bank branch, it's the location of the branch that sets the jurisdiction. If you commit it electronically against a corporation, I suspect you'd go by the state of incorporation.

FWIW, I need to deal with these sorts of legal issues far more than I would like.

A surprising number of jurisdictions are passing new sets of laws that require that the servers that are used to provide services to their citizens are located within the same country / jurisdiction. I've seen these laws from Russia, India, multiple countries within the EU, the UK (which may or may not be in the EU), Turkey, Thailand.

Officially, the reasons being given involve privacy concerns. I wonder whether the local governments understand how this is going to impact the cost of provisioning services...
(If this goes through, its not going to be pretty)

[mike777]

"Numerous systems use this client server networking model including Web sites and email services. An alternative model, peer-to-peer networking enables all computers to act as either a server or client as needed"

Ok, but not sure there need be a client-server network to use the internet. I assume there are other models or that there are other models in the works.
----

As far as laws as I mentioned before the law can in theory always be twisted, the police and courts perverted. Popular sentiment to bash FIFA can change rather quickly and turn against the USA.

[Mbodell]

 hrothgar, on 2015-May-30, 14:31, said:

FWIW, I need to deal with these sorts of legal issues far more than I would like.

A surprising number of jurisdictions are passing new sets of laws that require that the servers that are used to provide services to their citizens are located within the same country / jurisdiction. I've seen these laws from Russia, India, multiple countries within the EU, the UK (which may or may not be in the EU), Turkey, Thailand.

Officially, the reasons being given involve privacy concerns. I wonder whether the local governments understand how this is going to impact the cost of provisioning services...
(If this goes through, its not going to be pretty)

This has already happened to some degree. Especially for things that are Personally Identifiable Information. Which can me any recordings of your voice, your name, your account information, etc. This is partially for citizen privacy rights (most first world countries give their citizens more rights with respect to privacy and control of their data as opposed to corporations) and partly to try and keep it out of US intelligence hands (post Snowden - see this or this for more information).

[Trinidad]

 gwnn, on 2015-May-30, 12:55, said:

OK am I misreading this or are you changing your position now?

I guess 90% of our argument boiled down to "internet account" vs "bank account." I was talking about the latter and you about the former.

For me, there is no principal difference between an internet account and a bank account. They are physically the same, some bits that are up or down on a server somewhere, that give the holder of the account certain rights.

Rik

[Mbodell]

 mike777, on 2015-May-30, 15:23, said:

"Numerous systems use this client server networking model including Web sites and email services. An alternative model, peer-to-peer networking enables all computers to act as either a server or client as needed"

Ok, but not sure there need be a client-server network to use the internet. I assume there are other models or that there are other models in the works.

The internet is largely defined by the client-server model. The http (Hyper Text Transport Protocol) or https (HTTP secure) that is in front of most URL (Uniform Resource Locator) is a client-server protocol. Moving down a layer TCP (transmission control protocol), which ensures orderly transmission (and retransmission if needed) of packets is also a client-server protocol with a 3-way handshake between the client and the server to establish the connection. Peer to peer is still client-server, just that a host can be a client for one person and a server to someone else (I.e., when I download a torrent I'm the client connecting to servers to download the content. Then after I've downloaded some/all of the content, other people can connect to me as clients to download the content from me, and when they do so I'm the server for them).

As for "Arguably, if you are using servers that are based in the US, you are doing something in the US." from hrothgar, that arguably is a big thing. When I do something on my computer, it is only my computer that is directly effected. Then the information needs to go through my computer to my ISP. And then it has an effect on my ISP. Then it is my ISP that connects to other ISP, the ISP in question connects to the server, and only then something happens. But what if all I did was send an email? What if I'm logged in to a shell? What if I merely post something to my web site, and the US server is constantly scraping my web site and processes my posting to take some action (like place a bet). What if I phone someone and dictate to them what to type in to the server? It is all very abstract. It is sort of like if I'm standing in Mexico when I fire the gun, but the bullet hits someone in the US wounding them, and then they travel to Canada for treatment - where they die from complications from the wounds - then did I commit the murder in Canada, US, Mexico, none, all? Where should we bury the survivors.

Note that the US doesn't want the place the servers are to be the only place that matters. If I'm in the US and place a bet with a server in the UK, the US doesn't treat that the same as if I fly to a casino in the UK and place a bet there. Similar for copyright pirating and other much nastier online behavior.

The really obnoxious ones though are not just the endpoints being in play, but anywhere the packets go, so things like:

- what if I'm in Canada and want to place a bet in the UK, and this would be legal in both Canada and the UK, but some/all of the packets between me in Canada and the casino in the UK travel through "internet pipes" in the US. Does this have me break US laws?
- what if the NSA is only allowed to warrantlessly spy on US citizen's abroad but not living in the US. But what if a US citizen living in the US is communicating with another US citizen living in the US but some/all of their communication is routed abroad briefly through either Mexico or Canada. Is this now foreign surveillance and okay for the NSA to capture with no warrants?

[gwnn]

 Trinidad, on 2015-May-31, 01:55, said:

For me, there is no principal difference between an internet account and a bank account. They are physically the same, some bits that are up or down on a server somewhere, that give the holder of the account certain rights.

Rik

OK so could you give me a straight answer: If I am doing money laundering on a US account but I only press Enter in the internet banking when I am not in the US, am I or am I not justifiably prosecuted by the US justice system? Money laundering is a crime in the US and Switzerland, too.