A legend. I’m still amazed by how ahead of the time MEGA was with full in browser file encryption when the other players weren’t ever starting on that.
Probably because of the cultural goods available for free? I watched ton of Japanese animes back in the day that were not published in my country, or when it was very out of price (I bought manga tho, which were cheaper).
> I feel like the people protesting the Vietnam war would be regarded by the current online zeitgeist as “pro-Mao”.
Many of them were extremely strong supporters of Ho Chi Minh (they used to call him the Vietnamese George Washington), the Viet Cong and — yes — even Mao. Mao’s ‘little red book’ was a popular accessory for anti-war protesters of the time.
More akin to WWII.. not vietnam. The US was reluctant to join, and was home to millions who were quite happy with Hitler. [1][2]
"In 1940, a group of Yale University students founded the America First Committee to oppose US intervention in the European war." [1]
"In its various expressions, the pro-Nazi stance during those years was mostly focused not on creating an active military alliance with Germany or bringing the U.S. under Nazi control (something Hitler himself thought wouldn’t be possible) but rather on keeping the U.S. out of war in Europe." [2]
"During the Russo-Ukrainian War, Dotcom has repeatedly spread anti-Ukrainian falsehoods, and Russian government propaganda. Critics accuse him of spreading Russian Federation propaganda such as: claims of Nazism in Ukraine, Ukrainian attacks on Russian-speaking minority, claims of American "biolaboratories" in Ukraine, and accusing the US of causing the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine."
As with all Wikipedia refs, review their sources yourself.
> Critics accuse him of spreading Russian Federation propaganda such as: claims of Nazism in Ukraine, Ukrainian attacks on Russian-speaking minority, claims of American "biolaboratories" in Ukraine, and accusing the US of causing the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine."
At least the claim regarding nazism is very valid. Heck, Ukraine has a whole bataillon using that emblem[1], featuring a rune-like SS symbol and the freaking black sun! People having been accused of nazism in the US or Europe for way less than that.
The implication of US in the Maiden Revolution, which is one root of the problem, is also documented in serious newspapers[2].
The claim is that Ukraine is controlled by nazis and therefore Russian intervention is needed to free the Ukrainian people from nazi control, not that there are nazis in Ukraine (which is obviously true, the same way it's true that there are nazis in Russia, Germany, the US and many other places).
— Alexey Milchakov, field commander of the Rusich neo-Nazi paramilitary group in russia.
The war was never about Nazism. The russians use the word “Nazi” to describe anyone who opposes russia. The official russian position on WWII is that it started in 1941 (when Operation Barbarossa started, and not the invasion of Poland), and russia’s official position is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact never existed.
Russia is full of Nazis, and the russians were allied with Nazi Germany in WWII.
I think we often forget that Russian propaganda is also often aimed at Russians and not the west.
Nazis invaded Russia and calling their neighbors Nazis is meant to invoke fear and imminent danger to the Russian people. It’s a completely different vibe than calling right wingers Nazis in the US
So what? First of all, was that even a Russian disinformation campaign? Second, and more importantly, so what? Imagine you're fighting the government of a powerful country that's trying to imprison you because they said you committed some crimes when you never even visited that country. Wouldn't you do anything you could to try and discredit them? Kim is fighting for his life.
> When you say pro-Putin, do you mean actually pro-Putin or just for ending the war in Ukraine?
Any suggestion to end the war involving Ukraine's capitulation (giving territories, being blocked from joining NATO or other defensive alliances, etc.) is being pro-Putin.
It's quite exhausting to read people like you parroting the "end the war in Ukraine" euphemism to mean "give in to Putin's demands". Chamberlain would be proud...
Yeah...it's pretty hilarious how the American left is now the pro-war side and being against it and not wanting more war after over 2 decades of it means you're a Russian asset.
That is not what is happening here with Dotcom though.
Kim Dotcom spreads misinformation and in doing so provides justification for russia’s invasion and genocide in Ukraine. It’s no different from someone saying about WWII that the Jews had it coming.
It is an entirely accurate sentence. They did invade Ukraine (I would know; I was there), they have committed mass atrocities against the civilian population, and they have stolen thousands of children. These comprise the literal definition of the word genocide.
If I could prove that stance as morally incorrect? I’m sorry? Are you suggesting that genocide is morally righteous? Would you be comfortable sharing this position with your parents or your employer?
>Are you suggesting that genocide is morally righteous?
This is, unironically, why people got tired of the left in the US. I don't mean to start controversy on that particular topic (the US election), only remark that I never suggested something even remotely close to that and yet you somehow assumed the worst interpretation you could come up with, just so you could have an imaginary "win".
"Do you want to donate to the victims of hurricane X?" "Nope." "Oh, I see, so you want them to DIE!"
People. are. tired. of. that.
>Would you be comfortable sharing this position with your parents or your employer?
Absolutely! My parents love me for who I am and I don't have to pretend to be anyone else, but me, for them to accept me. They would be the last people on Earth I would hide something from. I'm also fortunate enough to be in a work environment where mature people can say what they think without fear of being discriminated, judged or profiled by it. Would recommend.
You’ve done the same thing you accuse them of doing. You also “somehow assumed the worst interpretation you could come up with, just so you could have an imaginary "win”.” They asked "Are you suggesting that genocide is morally righteous?" — it wasn’t a statement that I could read into. Unlike the combination of statements they replied too.
>There's people in the world who believe it's justified. (russia’s invasion and genocide in Ukraine)
>Even if somehow you could prove that stance as being morally incorrect …
Implies that proof is needed to call Ukrainian genocide morally incorrect. If that is not what you meant, then I would be curious to also know what was meant, not because Ukraine-Russia, my emotions don't have a dog in that fight and I won't be jumping into it--simply for better understanding of the phrasing/wording, not a big deal thou tbh.
I, personally, read their response as being confused to the implications and posing questions asking for clarification.
The ending part about being comfortable sharing that position, I would take as an emotional bit that should be discarded if following the rules of the site to participate in good faith (not assuming the worst) due to their stated closeness to the situation. (I also don’t agree with the wording of the sentence before the part you say is loaded, I think it was a poor choice of words; not to the point of using antagonism as a response though)
Maybe you have your own closeness to something that would make your sounding off on genocide more palpable (somehow)..but was not stated, so them asking for clarification was not at all assuming the worst. Maybe you also used a poor choice of words, but instead of saying so when someone questioned it you went into this “gotcha ‘win’” thing you accuse them of.
It. is. as. tiring. as. things. the. “left”. does. Both "sides" simply do it in their own ways.
Pretty weird how Hollywood corpos and lobbyists can convince the US government to prosecute a non-US citizen who's across the globe all while using illegally issued warrants to raid him.
TLDR: a judge in the pocket of Chevron let their lawyers keep the lawyer who won a judgement against Chevron keep him in house arrest. The who case is a misuse of the criminal justice system.
I can't find much information about the Hague decision. The Reuters article is basically a blurb, and the WSJ is paywalled. To summarize Wikipedia, Guerro - the judge which Chevron immigrated to the US - seems to have exaggerated his testimony; he later walks back much of everything involving Donziger (ghostwriting and bribes). I was hoping that the references to the Hague's decision would have more information.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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? :)
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…
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.
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
A legend. I’m still amazed by how ahead of the time MEGA was with full in browser file encryption when the other players weren’t ever starting on that.
If nothing else you have to admire the balls it takes to fight the US for over a decade.
There seems to have something with Kim that make them resist the US :)
The article says Kim Dotcom is fighting deportation to the US. Isn't the right term extradition?
Yes.
For such a controversial figure, he's directly created positive impacts in my life.
Please expand
Probably because of the cultural goods available for free? I watched ton of Japanese animes back in the day that were not published in my country, or when it was very out of price (I bought manga tho, which were cheaper).
I found Mega a good privacy respecting service for keeping backups of my files.
At least until the warrant canary was gone
Age 50, born 1974 for those curious.
I hope he's OK, what a rebel, all the way back to the Chaos computer club. It's been enjoyable watching him fight Hollywood.
I used to root for this guy until he became pro-Putin.
Okay, my hero lived long enough to become a villain. That's sad, but this happens.
Maybe he hopes for Russia to give me asylum? The KGB rule is much worse than he can even imagine though.
>Okay, my hero lived long enough to become a villain. That's sad, but this happens.
Yep, definitely not the first time. Just look at Scott Adams.
God Scott Adams. What a disappointment.
The Joy of Work should be required reading for every new college graduate.
Though not really a villain. Just a MAGA guy.
> Okay, my hero lived long enough to become a villain. That's sad, but this happens.
Every hero ultimately becomes a villain in the current society, because current society cannot withstand people having different opinions from us.
If we cannot accept different opinions, what's even the point of having heroes ?
When you say pro-Putin, do you mean actually pro-Putin or just for ending the war in Ukraine?
At this point I feel like the people protesting the Vietnam war would be regarded by the current online zeitgeist as “pro-Mao”.
I think it was more my enemy's enemy is my friend. He backed Russian attacks on the US/west because the US was trying to get him.
> I feel like the people protesting the Vietnam war would be regarded by the current online zeitgeist as “pro-Mao”.
Many of them were extremely strong supporters of Ho Chi Minh (they used to call him the Vietnamese George Washington), the Viet Cong and — yes — even Mao. Mao’s ‘little red book’ was a popular accessory for anti-war protesters of the time.
Which he was though? Ho Chi Minh definitely wasn't the bad guy in the Vietnam war.
More akin to WWII.. not vietnam. The US was reluctant to join, and was home to millions who were quite happy with Hitler. [1][2]
"In 1940, a group of Yale University students founded the America First Committee to oppose US intervention in the European war." [1]
"In its various expressions, the pro-Nazi stance during those years was mostly focused not on creating an active military alliance with Germany or bringing the U.S. under Nazi control (something Hitler himself thought wouldn’t be possible) but rather on keeping the U.S. out of war in Europe." [2]
[1] https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/ma...
[2] https://time.com/5414055/american-nazi-sympathy-book/
I wonder what all those pro-Hitler Americans had to say in the years and decades after WWII.
"Hitler was fighting American expansionism".
[flagged]
From his Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dotcom#Promotion_of_conspi...
"During the Russo-Ukrainian War, Dotcom has repeatedly spread anti-Ukrainian falsehoods, and Russian government propaganda. Critics accuse him of spreading Russian Federation propaganda such as: claims of Nazism in Ukraine, Ukrainian attacks on Russian-speaking minority, claims of American "biolaboratories" in Ukraine, and accusing the US of causing the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine."
As with all Wikipedia refs, review their sources yourself.
Although, the sources in this case are basically articles citing things he said on Twitter.
Does that make them invalid? Surely we’re not expecting to see Dotcom’s dangerous misinformation published in a peer reviewed scientific journal?
I believe OPs point was that there is very little ambiguity when the source is his very own words posted by him directly
> Critics accuse him of spreading Russian Federation propaganda such as: claims of Nazism in Ukraine, Ukrainian attacks on Russian-speaking minority, claims of American "biolaboratories" in Ukraine, and accusing the US of causing the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine."
At least the claim regarding nazism is very valid. Heck, Ukraine has a whole bataillon using that emblem[1], featuring a rune-like SS symbol and the freaking black sun! People having been accused of nazism in the US or Europe for way less than that.
The implication of US in the Maiden Revolution, which is one root of the problem, is also documented in serious newspapers[2].
[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9giment_Azov#/media/Fich...
[2] https://www.lepoint.fr/monde/ukraine-la-cia-en-sous-main-05-...
The claim is that Ukraine is controlled by nazis and therefore Russian intervention is needed to free the Ukrainian people from nazi control, not that there are nazis in Ukraine (which is obviously true, the same way it's true that there are nazis in Russia, Germany, the US and many other places).
At least the claim regarding nazism is very valid.
Except it's not. It's just a random collection of (by now very old) partial factoids mostly taken out of context and blown wildly out of proportion.
Why? To push your buttons, and get you riled up.
> At least the claim regarding nazism is very valid. Heck, Ukraine has a whole batallion
It was pretty funny when shortly after the war broke out Facebook had to modify their policy prohibiting praise of Azov.
“I am a Nazi.”
— Alexey Milchakov, field commander of the Rusich neo-Nazi paramilitary group in russia.
The war was never about Nazism. The russians use the word “Nazi” to describe anyone who opposes russia. The official russian position on WWII is that it started in 1941 (when Operation Barbarossa started, and not the invasion of Poland), and russia’s official position is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact never existed.
Russia is full of Nazis, and the russians were allied with Nazi Germany in WWII.
The war in Ukraine today is not about Naziism.
I think we often forget that Russian propaganda is also often aimed at Russians and not the west.
Nazis invaded Russia and calling their neighbors Nazis is meant to invoke fear and imminent danger to the Russian people. It’s a completely different vibe than calling right wingers Nazis in the US
It also feeds into their "Ukraine is not really a country" narrative.
Because how do we know it's not really a country? Because it's overrun with zombies (Nazis), of course.
Mao didn't start the war in Vietnam.
Remember when he said he had personal knowledge about Seth Rich, I.e. lying to further a Russian disinformation campaign? I do.
So what? First of all, was that even a Russian disinformation campaign? Second, and more importantly, so what? Imagine you're fighting the government of a powerful country that's trying to imprison you because they said you committed some crimes when you never even visited that country. Wouldn't you do anything you could to try and discredit them? Kim is fighting for his life.
> When you say pro-Putin, do you mean actually pro-Putin or just for ending the war in Ukraine?
Any suggestion to end the war involving Ukraine's capitulation (giving territories, being blocked from joining NATO or other defensive alliances, etc.) is being pro-Putin.
It's quite exhausting to read people like you parroting the "end the war in Ukraine" euphemism to mean "give in to Putin's demands". Chamberlain would be proud...
Yeah...it's pretty hilarious how the American left is now the pro-war side and being against it and not wanting more war after over 2 decades of it means you're a Russian asset.
The American left has always been against every war*
* Except for the war that was happening at that time
An increasingly common issue in this infantilized society.
"I'm not friends with Jacob because he likes celebrity A and I like celebrity B".
Is Putin celebrity A or celebrity B here?
Your pick!
Choose your own adventure. Hmm. Been a while since I've done one of these...
isn't this comment very infantilized in and of itself?
That is indeed a problem.
That is not what is happening here with Dotcom though.
Kim Dotcom spreads misinformation and in doing so provides justification for russia’s invasion and genocide in Ukraine. It’s no different from someone saying about WWII that the Jews had it coming.
https://www.voanews.com/a/fact-check-pro-russian-falsehoods-...
[flagged]
A loaded sentence?
It is an entirely accurate sentence. They did invade Ukraine (I would know; I was there), they have committed mass atrocities against the civilian population, and they have stolen thousands of children. These comprise the literal definition of the word genocide.
If I could prove that stance as morally incorrect? I’m sorry? Are you suggesting that genocide is morally righteous? Would you be comfortable sharing this position with your parents or your employer?
Yes, it is a loaded sentence, read [1].
>Are you suggesting that genocide is morally righteous?
This is, unironically, why people got tired of the left in the US. I don't mean to start controversy on that particular topic (the US election), only remark that I never suggested something even remotely close to that and yet you somehow assumed the worst interpretation you could come up with, just so you could have an imaginary "win".
"Do you want to donate to the victims of hurricane X?" "Nope." "Oh, I see, so you want them to DIE!"
People. are. tired. of. that.
>Would you be comfortable sharing this position with your parents or your employer?
Absolutely! My parents love me for who I am and I don't have to pretend to be anyone else, but me, for them to accept me. They would be the last people on Earth I would hide something from. I'm also fortunate enough to be in a work environment where mature people can say what they think without fear of being discriminated, judged or profiled by it. Would recommend.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language
You’ve done the same thing you accuse them of doing. You also “somehow assumed the worst interpretation you could come up with, just so you could have an imaginary "win”.” They asked "Are you suggesting that genocide is morally righteous?" — it wasn’t a statement that I could read into. Unlike the combination of statements they replied too.
>There's people in the world who believe it's justified. (russia’s invasion and genocide in Ukraine)
>Even if somehow you could prove that stance as being morally incorrect …
Implies that proof is needed to call Ukrainian genocide morally incorrect. If that is not what you meant, then I would be curious to also know what was meant, not because Ukraine-Russia, my emotions don't have a dog in that fight and I won't be jumping into it--simply for better understanding of the phrasing/wording, not a big deal thou tbh.
I, personally, read their response as being confused to the implications and posing questions asking for clarification.
The ending part about being comfortable sharing that position, I would take as an emotional bit that should be discarded if following the rules of the site to participate in good faith (not assuming the worst) due to their stated closeness to the situation. (I also don’t agree with the wording of the sentence before the part you say is loaded, I think it was a poor choice of words; not to the point of using antagonism as a response though)
Maybe you have your own closeness to something that would make your sounding off on genocide more palpable (somehow)..but was not stated, so them asking for clarification was not at all assuming the worst. Maybe you also used a poor choice of words, but instead of saying so when someone questioned it you went into this “gotcha ‘win’” thing you accuse them of.
It. is. as. tiring. as. things. the. “left”. does. Both "sides" simply do it in their own ways.
Yeah when he started simping for elon musk I do not care what befalls him. Mega was good for piracy back in the day, and maybe still is today.
[flagged]
Pretty weird how Hollywood corpos and lobbyists can convince the US government to prosecute a non-US citizen who's across the globe all while using illegally issued warrants to raid him.
Even weirder how corporations are able to persecute US citizens for holding them legally accountable in other parts of the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger#Class_action_l...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger#Counter-litiga...
TLDR: a judge in the pocket of Chevron let their lawyers keep the lawyer who won a judgement against Chevron keep him in house arrest. The who case is a misuse of the criminal justice system.
I can't find much information about the Hague decision. The Reuters article is basically a blurb, and the WSJ is paywalled. To summarize Wikipedia, Guerro - the judge which Chevron immigrated to the US - seems to have exaggerated his testimony; he later walks back much of everything involving Donziger (ghostwriting and bribes). I was hoping that the references to the Hague's decision would have more information.
It's like corporations are in control, not the people, right?
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
> 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.
> 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.
>"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.
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.
half the things you've said and done on the internet were probably illegal in russia/china/best korea/iran/random shithole.
So the US should just be able to make laws for citizens of other countries?
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.
Or the EU can make me click cookies banners the rest of my life
Or, US companies can stop tracking us. Also, there are several add-ons that will assist with hiding the cookie info.
why should one jurisdiction be above another? what even is the jurisdiction of the internet? sorry, but your answer is just out of touch
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.
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
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? :)
When exactly will it be illegal to stream porn in the US?
Presumably referring to Project 2025. So 2025?
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…
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.
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
[flagged]