Subject: RFC3271 and independance of "cyberspace"

From: Alexandre Dulaunoy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 10:45:45 +0200 (CEST)

Quote from RFC3271 : 
""
   Internet is for everyone - but it won't be if legislation around the
   world creates a thicket of incompatible laws that hinder the growth
   of electronic commerce, stymie the protection of intellectual
   property, and stifle freedom of expression and the development of
   market economies.  Let us dedicate ourselves to the creation of a
   global legal framework in which laws work across national boundaries
   to reinforce the upward spiral of value that the Internet is capable
   of creating.
""

What is a global legal framework ? I do not understand the purpose of that ?  

I hope this not the application of the classical "material" law in a 
global legal framework.  

Thanks for more information.

Alexandre Dulaunoy.

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 10:48:56 -0400

> What is a global legal framework ? I do not understand the purpose of that ?

The purpose of that is so that the owners of eBay don't have to go to
jail because somebody sells something that's totally legal in the US,
but offends some French or German law.

It's so that French and German citizens don't go to jail because they
post something offensive to Russians.

It's so that Russians don't go to jail for posting something offensive
to some fundamentalist regime.

It's so that Swedish police can prosecute somebody from New Zealand for
hacking a machine in Sweden from another machine in Korea - while still
avoiding some of the more drastic anti-hacking suggestions that have
been made. 

> I hope this not the application of the classical "material" law in a 

Don't knock "material" law - in some places, it's been in use for many
hundreds of years, mostly because it *works*.  And *many* of the concepts
carry over quite nicely - breaking&entering, destruction of property,
fraud, and many other crimes.  The only places "material" law hasn't done
a good job of keeping up have been intellectual property and copyright, and
the handling of extra-territorial issues.
-- 
				Valdis Kletnieks
				Computer Systems Senior Engineer
				Virginia Tech

---

From: Einar Stefferud <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 08:54:33 -0700

Remember the joke about the comedian with one crippled hand who held 
up both hands and said "Lord, Please make both my hands the same!"

And She Did;-)...\Stef

In Reply To Message from Alexandre Dulaunoy <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:26:41 -0500

Thus spake <[email-masked]>
On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 10:45:45 +0200, Alexandre Dulaunoy

> > What is a global legal framework ? I do not understand the

I believe his desire is to create a single set of laws which apply to the
entire world, ignoring cultural differences and national sovereignty issues.

Whether this is desirable is certainly open for debate, but experience has
shown it's not possible in practice anyways.

> The purpose of that is so that the owners of eBay don't have to go > to
jail because somebody sells something that's totally legal in the > US, but
offends some French or German law.

The buyer, presumably residing in France or Germany, is already responsible
for the legality of anything he imports.  How is this the seller's problem?

> It's so that French and German citizens don't go to jail because
> they post something offensive to Russians.
> It's so that Russians don't go to jail for posting something
> offensive to some fundamentalist regime.

If the Russians don't want to read it, they shouldn't import the content.
Ditto the fundamentalists.

> It's so that Swedish police can prosecute somebody from New
> Zealand for hacking a machine in Sweden from another
> machine in Korea - while still avoiding some of the more
> drastic anti-hacking suggestions that have been made.

Here one needs a good definition of where the crime occurs; did it occur
where the person is physically present or where the resulting action occurs?
How do you plan on forcing the Korean government to assist if no laws are
broken in Korea and neither the hacker nor hackee exist in their
jurisdiction?

Assuming the Swedes have a law against hacking, they can extradite the
suspect from New Zealand under existing treaties.  A New World Order is not
necessary.

S

---

From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 14:36:16 -0500

> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:26:41 CDT, Stephen Sprunk said:
>> The buyer, presumably residing in France or Germany, is
>> already responsible for the legality of anything he imports.
>> How is this the seller's problem?
>
> The problem is that (for example) it is *totally* legal for one US
> citizen to sell another US citizen some Nazi memorabilia on
> eBay.  The problem is that the web page *describing* the auction
> is accessible in countries that have laws against dealing in such
> things, and they wish to force eBay to make sure that the pages
> aren't accessible in their country.

If eBay doesn't exist (legally speaking) in Germany, tough luck.  Forcing
German ISPs to block the content, however, would be doable.

Next, are we to force the post to read all mail coming into Germany to make
sure there's no mail-order Nazi memorabilia catalogs?  Would doing so be
legal?  If legal, would it be feasible?

> So if you're in Chicago, and have a web site about llamas, and
> some country passes a law prohibiting discussions about llamas,
> do you want to suddenly find yourself extradited just because
> your web page was *accessible* from said country?

The person committing that "crime" is not within the jurisdiction of the
other country, and thus extradition is not possible.  If so, Hugh Hefner and
Larry Flynt would have been executed in the Middle East decades ago.

>> Assuming the Swedes have a law against hacking, they can
>> extradite the suspect from New Zealand under existing
>> treaties.  A New World Order is not necessary.

> Not if Korea doesn't have a law against hacking, or there is no
> cooperation from the Korean end to produce evidence that the
> hacker was actually in New Zealand.

So what do you propose?  Forcing the sovereign government of Korea to adopt
a law for your benefit?  Want to outlaw prostitution, gambling, and drugs
worldwide while you're at it?

S

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 16:04:27 -0400

> German ISPs to block the content, however, would be doable.

Unfortunately, I think eBay does have a German subsidiary..

> legal?  If legal, would it be feasible?

I believe the German postal service already has this authority.  Whether
it's legal depends on what the German courts decide.

> Larry Flynt would have been executed in the Middle East decades ago.

He is if both countries have ratified the Conventions on Cybercrime
treaty.  Beware, the US is already a signatory...

> So what do you propose?  Forcing the sovereign government of Korea to adopt

No, what I said was that you won't be able to extradite without doing
something similar.  You'll have to judge for yourself whether you want
your country to give up that ability...

> worldwide while you're at it?

And llamas too.

Be careful what you wish for:

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/WhatYouWant.asp?NT=185

as you may get it:

http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZD3WRL5LC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0&s=News&ExpIgnore=true&showsummary=0

/Valdis

---

From: "James Seng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 08:13:09 +0800

bad idea for engineers to play lawyers.

but dreaming/wishing is not a crime.

james

---

From: Sandy Wills <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 04:47:30 -0400

> bad idea for engineers to play lawyers.

"Engineer" means "someone who takes dreams and makes them real".

"Lawyer" means "someone who takes nightmares and makes them real".

I'd rather have an engineer play lawyer, than have a lawyer play
engineer.

-- 
: Unable to locate coffee.  Operator halted.

---

From: Alexandre Dulaunoy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 15:26:06 +0200 (CEST)

> I'd rather have an engineer play lawyer, than have a lawyer play

Yes, you are right. 

My question was regarding the purpose of that (...legal framework...) in a RFC. 

When we see the damage of the additional article in the WIPO (for example 
the article 10/11 in the copyright article)... 

That generate the DMCA in US and the EUCD in Europe. 

So global legal framework are quite dangerous in a RFC. 

IMVHO. 

adulau

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 20:16:51 -0400

>    to reinforce the upward spiral of value that the Internet is capable

I'd like to propose an alternate paragraph here:

""
Internet is for everyone - but it won't be if intellectual property laws
continue to encroach on our freedom to develop and use new technologies,
to share ideas and expressions of ideas with others, to comment on and 
criticize others' ideas and expressions of ideas, to restrict our use 
of ordinary language, and to effectively give a small number of people 
control over the distribution and licensing of popular works.  Let us 
dedicate ourselves to the worldwide abolishment of the provisions in 
intellectual property laws - copyrights, patents, and trademarks - which 
stifle the freedom of expression and the development of a gloabl marketplace 
of ideas, to reinforce the upward spiral of real value (not to be confused 
with money) that the citizens of the world can create with the Internet's 
help.
""

Keith

---

From: vint cerf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:49:13 -0400

well, keith since we cannot amend RFCs maybe you should prepare one of your own?
I am not sure that the idea of killing intellectual property is the right one either.
We all know there is something wrong with the current set up but I am no sure that
the wholesale dispatch of Intellectual Property concepts is the right answer either!

vint