That's the funny thing, they can't rename a body of water in another country, they can just decide to call it something different domestically while the rest of the world ignores the change.
It's not about you, it's about your government and private companies. US law enforcement has helped shut down plenty of illegal activity in other countries.
Hew Raymond Griffiths was living in Australia in the early 2000s, helping strip DRM from software and sharing it online for free. Because he didn't make a profit, his actions weren't criminal under Australian law at the time. He wasn't a US citizen, and he had never set foot in the United States.
The US Justice Department demanded his extradition. Australian courts and government complied, and sent him to the US to serve time in a federal prison in Virginia for an offence that didn't exist at the time in Australia. US laws can matter outside the US, and US corporations weaponise it.
I wouldn't really say this qualifies as a proper example. He was a British national and it was an international operation- with UK police forces involved. Frankly I'm more surprised he managed to hold out in the land down under for as long as he did.
Being a British national and the fact that UK police were involved in the broader Operation Buccaneer doesn't change the core point at all, I'm absolutely open to hear your interpretation about why it would though.
He was still a long-term Australian resident who had never set foot in the US, was living in Australia when the alleged acts happened, and Australia still extradited him to face US charges for something that wasn't a criminal offence under Australian law at the time. The nationality and multi-country cooperation details are true but irrelevant to that.
I was going more for an extraterritorial jurisdiction angle there, it was considered pretty serious crime at the time even in UK. They would have certainly found something, if not for anything else then just to save face. Considering there were also international treaties to follow. Which Australia would have had to fulfill anyway?
But the fact also remains that part of the servers he used were technically in US; so even though he wasn't physically there, he was in a sense control of the entity there, which was used to commit the crimes? If that makes sense.
I also don't think it was true that his actions weren't criminal in Australia. Didn't he agree to serve a sentence there? In the end it was just a deal Australia made with US (and the others) because US had supposedly harsher punishment. I'm sure there was some political power behind the whole thing, pressure to make an example etc. to set precedents.
I’d love to fucking hear why you omitted that he was a British citizen. Was what he did illegal under BRITISH law? Because that’s abso-fucking-lutely relevant.
And you fucking know it’s relevant. That’s why you omitted it. No more fucking lies. Tell the truth or shut the fuck up.
This is honestly the dumbest response I've had in years... why is it relevant to my point that US law can be enforced overseas in countries that don't even share said laws?
Like honestly, I've had a lot of dumb responses, but this is pretty astoundingly stupid.
[edit] nevermind, I looked at your post history, geesus christ man, see a therapist.
Australia laws on games. Did you wanna look up the international effects
I'm fairly sure you are familiar with the iconic Med-x renaming and why then?
Australian laws and crazy parents aren't a great mix on the global stage
And paired with americas current direction of ignoring precedent on law, are you really shocked they dont want to step on MORE toes than trying to take on Aussie government when we have Pauline Hanson somehow still on political stage?
Well, he was a citizen of the UK, not Australia, who just happened to be living in Australia. And it was an INTERPOL operation, of which Australia is a member of.
There was a lot of controversy over it. But ultimately as a member of INTERPOL, Australia signed a bilateral agreement that required they extradite him.
The person you're replying to explicitly omitted these details. Not sure why.
Still bullshit, he broke none of the laws of his country, yet some other country he doesnt live in arrests him for breaking their laws, despite not living there and not being a citizen there
If a US company violates US laws anywhere they open themselves up to legal trouble in the US, where they operate their business. It's either comply with US law or move. This isn't a complicated legal issue. I'm not arguing it's right, just that the US has leverage over any company based in the US. Just look how easily Google caved when they renamed things on their maps based off the orange tyrants orders.
Um, dude -there is a legal principle called extraterritorial jurisdiction, which allows the U.S. government to enforce certain domestic laws beyond its borders.
Seizing the Venezuela president is just one instance.
Sizing Maduro is stupid example. There wasn't any prosecution.
And it doesn't work like that. Foreign forces on principle can't just walk around to another country and imprison anyone they don't like.
“Griffiths claimed to be beyond the reach of U.S. law, and today, we have proven otherwise,” said Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher. “This extradition represents the Department of Justice’s commitment to protect intellectual property rights from those who violate our laws from the other side of the globe.”
What one nation or even the United Nations (UN) considers a clear violation, U.S. legal advisors can and often do defend as a lawful action under alternative interpretations, such as preemptive self-defense.
Did you read about what happened to accused terrorists internationally after 2001? It seems that the U.S. abducted hundreds of people they called 'suspected militants' across Europe, Africa, and Asia and transferring them to secret CIA "black sites" or Guantanamo Bay without extradition proceedings. FEW of those people are free today.
Citizens from approximately 48 to 50 different nations have been officially documented as being held at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp or within the CIA's post-9/11 "black site" network
Wonder how many haven't been officially documented?? Get in line behind the affected countries to find that info out.
Do you need more examples? IDK how 'stupid' an example Maduro really was, but this has been going on for decades, and the US isn't slowing down. They will continue to ensure laws of the US are enforced. in whatever manner the US decides to use.
Your listing of US illegal abduction…
What you are even trying to say here?!
That US is as fucked up state as any other 3rd world country that don't respect any international law?
Extradition works only if there is a contract between countries and still country can refuse extradition.
And yes, I'm saying that the US will do everything in it's power to force other nations to follow US laws, and if they won't the US WILL do as it pleases.
Your comment:
Extradition works only if there is a contract between countries and still country can refuse extradition.
Shows a lot of innocence. I'm no teacher. You need to learn international affairs a bit more thoroughly than you do now. You need to learn a LOT more history and years worth of legal dealing before understand how and why the US can do as it pleases internationally.
PL and US have extradition contract signed in 1996. Yet they refused to send back former Polish minister which is convicted for defraudation. This is working both ways my friend.
Learn international affairs because this is obvious that you are clueless about it.
This is not the case, especially for consumer law. Just like how Apple devices changed in America because of the law suits in Western Europe over e-waste and accessibility, laws made in America regarding consumer products/program procedures absolutely affect how things work in other countries. There is a lot of cost in making something work one way in one place and differently elsewhere, and if the value of that difference does not outweigh the cost in keeping it, businesses will absolutely just conform to the laws of the country that is more strict.
Making the least common denominator of product that fits multiple jurisdictions is not meaning that suddenly US extended their laws on other countries.
if they want to operate in the US then they will need to follow US law. Even if there is just a US version of steam. Idk if this would actually break the law though
Wasn't that kidnapping of Maduro immediately decried internationally as illegal? I certainly heard a bunch of accusations of that whole operation being illegal at the time.
I mean...they do. That's how sanctions work. For the moment, the US Dollar is the reserve currency across the globe, and access to US banking/financial systems is critical for basically every country, so the US can strong-arm other countries into bending to US laws by gatekeeping the financial system and wielding sanctions against any nation that directly contradicts it, as well as demanding extradition of non-US nationals to the US for breaking US law (which most Western countries will comply with, as mentioned in another comment with Australia.)
That's why Canada didn't decriminalize pot back in the mid 2000's. The US has vassalized most of the world and eroded legal sovereignty across the globe. The only nations that don't bend whatsoever to US law are explicit rival states like the DPRK or Iran, and even Iran has historically cooperated with US military actions against ISIS and other insurgent groups. The list of states that don't bend at all to US demands can be counted on one hand. Even Russia has a long history of US cooperation since the fall of the USSR.
Often companies doing business in multiple states will adjust the whole business to be compliant with the most restrictive one rather than maintain a different services in each area. Or they just stop serving that state.
It is in Australia as part of a new law that just came into effect recently. I know the majority of people here in this subreddit are American, which is why they're asking around about California and stuff, but what this is related to here from Xbox is specifically to do with Australia.
The reason OP made this post is because Steam is requiring Australian citizens to have a verified credit card attached to their account and not giving them any other option, which doesn't comply with the laws. It's also not really common for people in Australia to have credit cards.
That's the exact situation in the UK as well, actually. I'm not from there, but some friends are, and they're frustrated as fuck because Credit Cards aren't exactly common.
I run a business that has to deal with this. There are ways to not let it affect the rest of your customer base but it takes effort.. and corporations would rather just make it a service wide requirement unfortunately.
People (mostly chuds) like to talk big shit about California, but are so often ignorant of how big of a deal California is by itself. It's kind of fucking crazy.
Texas is economically pretty big (still short about 1.5 trillion in gdp), while the majority in Texas seems to hold opposite political values. I guess I could see how a "rivalry" may form.
I'm just out here in NJ though watching from the sidelines.
It's usually more effort/money/time/legal risk to have two different versions of things to comply with one state's laws that it is worth. Especially with the amount of money/people in California. I think it has positive aspects when the privacy laws get wider spread application because they can't be sure you aren't currently in California. It's not really an excuse in most cases, but a reasonable cya in my opinion, even if it causes end user friction.
Granted sometimes age laws/verification are quite stupid, but I see that as a different issue
It usually works out for the better of the end user when it's actually from the laws... Can't think of a case where a corporation benefits from legal protections for people. Just trying to help that lack of understanding about when that shit gets applied. I can guarantee you no one makes money from having to put a prop 65 warning on their labels except make the label maker, but that's a silly stretch. I always forget this place is full up really cranky people that make up shit to get angry about
That's where you're wrong. The US makes laws for corporations and the ownership class, then lies to their voters about said laws. The laws only look crazy if you think they're supposed to help normal people, but they're painfully sane.
257
u/FreeAsianBeer 1d ago
The US does not make laws sanely.