Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

After the arrest of Marcus Hutchins I have already resolved not to set foot in the USA (unless badly necessary for business :/ ). It is surprising how little international outrage that arrest sparked: if the reasoning of the USA in this case were solid then international travel would halt. You would need to review everything you've done online (the last few years at least but possibly ever) and compare it to the laws of the country you are entering. If the USA believes Hutchins committed a crime according to US laws then they should ask the UK to arrest and extradite him. Let me emphasize: it doesn't matter, at all, what Hutchins have done.

And this was not the first time this was done: Sklyarov was arrested for violating the DMCA while outside the USA as well. That case was one of the primary reasons I excluded the USA as my immigration target and landed in Canada instead (back in 2006 I was in a position where I could choose).

This policy just makes my resolve stronger.



>That case was one of the primary reasons I excluded the USA as my immigration target and landed in Canada instead (back in 2006 I was in a position where I could choose).

>This policy just makes my resolve stronger.

Canada (and the UK and Australia) has this same "give me your password" policy [1], too. They've even arrested re-entering Canadian citizens for refusing [2].

So while your decision may have been "noble", I'm not sure Canada was the right choice.

1: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/border-phone-laptop-search...

2: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/alain-philippon-to...


Note for 2:

"According to an agreed statement of facts, Philippon had $5,000, two phones and traces of cocaine on his bags when he arrived in Halifax."


> You would need to review everything you've done online (the last few years at least but possibly ever) and compare it to the laws of the country you are entering.

Yes, that's what you must do any time you enter a country. Any country is free to arrest you for past violations of its laws when it has the physical ability to do so. Once you're physically present in a country, it no longer needs to demand your extradition: you've extradited yourself.


Here's a hypothetical: the country I was born in has a statute where the distribution of a sickle-hammer or the nazi swastika sign (and similar signs, listed in the law) is a minor offense, to be punished with a short jail sentence. Now the hypothetical: You land there, the border officer asks for your phone, browses through your Facebook posts and sees a Soviet joke you made (he doesn't understand it) but sees the icon you put besides. You spend the next sixty days behind bars. Are you OK with this?


In general people expect the laws of a country to apply to them only while are actually inside that country. In the UK you have to drive on the left side of the road, would you expect to be arrested on arrival for having driven on the right side of the road while in another country? Being refused entry is understandable, but being arrested? Isn't a country's jurisdiction supposed to be restricted to its borders?


Obviously every UN member state have their own jurisdiction. Henry Kissinger argued this aspect of sovereignty even applies to the highest crimes (crimes against humanity etc) while others claim universal jurisdiction over these. Noone, ever, tried to claim universal jurisdiction over circumventing copy protection. The US just does it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: