stupid question time
10 Jun 2009 01:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kaigouI figure someone on my elist is gonna know the answer to this one. Maybe?
Context: I'm aware that different countries have different laws about what is, and is not, legal. Like the fact that the US considers the demarcation of child pornography to be 18, not 16, as it is in some other countries. Or, perhaps purchases of drug paraphernalia. And whatever else: but essentially, things you cannot just walk into a local store and buy, because of your country's laws. (Cuban cigars, anyone?)
But over the internet, wouldn't that be a different matter? Let's say we're talking about... oh, hmm, like, ebooks. Righto. There's a good example. I order one by going to the publisher's or distributor's site, I put in my c'card -- or I use Paypal -- and within a few minutes, I download the book and read it. If I'm ordering from an international publisher (and yes, I do, actually), then my bank or credit card converts the foreign currency into my local rates based on the most recent exchange and I'm good to go. No extra effort on my part.
And, more importantly, no customs officials to rip open my email or download and inspect it thoroughly. It's true that any computer can track my IP, and that some countries do have domain-wide blocks, but there are oodles of ebook publishers and distributors and they're growing with every month and week. I have real trouble believing that any govt has the capacity to track down all those domains and block them for all in-country IPs -- yes, it can be done, but outside one really notable example, I've not heard of any other country having such major domain-blocks on its citizens' access to the internet.
Without those blocks, I can't see anywhere else -- technologically -- that I could be prevented from purchasing something over the internet that arrives in my email box, or that I then download from a site. If I can see the site, I can interact with it. At least, that's my understanding.
Am I wrong? Does anyone on my flist live somewhere that even online-purchase-and-download is limited or restricted (such as ebooks, or software, or any other kind of completely-electronic money-for-goods exchange)?
I'm not advocating breaking the law, if law it be. But it does seem to me that it's one thing to shy away from purchases that will be shipped internationally and inspected by customs... versus a purchase made in the privacy of your own home, that gets lost in the morass of internet traffic and about which no one would ever freaking know.
Or a better way to put it: if one is so worried about breaking the law by purchasing certain types of electronic materials, wouldn't possession of those materials also constitute breaking the law? Would it really amount to much of a defense if you told the judge that, well, the child pornography was a gift, so it's not like you actually spent money on it. Based on what I've seen of the way the world works, I don't think it makes any difference at all -- so if the laws are such that ordering a book, or a software, or whatever, would be bad, then it would follow that just owning such would also be bad... right?
Anyone?
Context: I'm aware that different countries have different laws about what is, and is not, legal. Like the fact that the US considers the demarcation of child pornography to be 18, not 16, as it is in some other countries. Or, perhaps purchases of drug paraphernalia. And whatever else: but essentially, things you cannot just walk into a local store and buy, because of your country's laws. (Cuban cigars, anyone?)
But over the internet, wouldn't that be a different matter? Let's say we're talking about... oh, hmm, like, ebooks. Righto. There's a good example. I order one by going to the publisher's or distributor's site, I put in my c'card -- or I use Paypal -- and within a few minutes, I download the book and read it. If I'm ordering from an international publisher (and yes, I do, actually), then my bank or credit card converts the foreign currency into my local rates based on the most recent exchange and I'm good to go. No extra effort on my part.
And, more importantly, no customs officials to rip open my email or download and inspect it thoroughly. It's true that any computer can track my IP, and that some countries do have domain-wide blocks, but there are oodles of ebook publishers and distributors and they're growing with every month and week. I have real trouble believing that any govt has the capacity to track down all those domains and block them for all in-country IPs -- yes, it can be done, but outside one really notable example, I've not heard of any other country having such major domain-blocks on its citizens' access to the internet.
Without those blocks, I can't see anywhere else -- technologically -- that I could be prevented from purchasing something over the internet that arrives in my email box, or that I then download from a site. If I can see the site, I can interact with it. At least, that's my understanding.
Am I wrong? Does anyone on my flist live somewhere that even online-purchase-and-download is limited or restricted (such as ebooks, or software, or any other kind of completely-electronic money-for-goods exchange)?
I'm not advocating breaking the law, if law it be. But it does seem to me that it's one thing to shy away from purchases that will be shipped internationally and inspected by customs... versus a purchase made in the privacy of your own home, that gets lost in the morass of internet traffic and about which no one would ever freaking know.
Or a better way to put it: if one is so worried about breaking the law by purchasing certain types of electronic materials, wouldn't possession of those materials also constitute breaking the law? Would it really amount to much of a defense if you told the judge that, well, the child pornography was a gift, so it's not like you actually spent money on it. Based on what I've seen of the way the world works, I don't think it makes any difference at all -- so if the laws are such that ordering a book, or a software, or whatever, would be bad, then it would follow that just owning such would also be bad... right?
Anyone?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 11 Jun 2009 01:06 am (UTC)Data has the same kind of thing going on. I have a friend who runs a porno site that archives stories and supports it by selling movies. It's international with the servers based in California. It's blocked in about half of the world. China can't read it, if the country has Sharia Laws, they can't read it. Sometimes Taiwan can, sometimes they can't. It's illegal to access the site and possession of it's contents on the harddrive is (temp files, cookies, etc.) is prosecutable. People do it anyway. I haven't heard of anyone prosecuted for doing so, but it has been done. China regularly prosecutes people for accessing websites. They prosecute bloggers. Owning a blog is prosecutable. So, yeah, just possessing the electronic copy of forbidden material in the State in which a person lives can be enough for prosecution.
China is currently attempting to restrict the purchase of Operating Systems so that only State approved websites may be accessed. That means no more Myspace, Facebook, Hotmail, etc. if they can get the OS makers to go for it. So far, it's not working.
no subject
Date: 11 Jun 2009 02:06 am (UTC)...which supports my supposition that if you can *see* it, you can *interact* with it. From what I've read, China doesn't intercept what you're doing -- it just doesn't let you do it in the first place. (Of course, it seems like China is constantly on the losing end of trying to keep up with new domains and IPs and sneaky bloggers etc, not that I'm crying for them losing and in fact am all for them losing that battle permanently but hey.)
In the US, for example, you can be charged with possession of illegal drugs, possession with intent to sell, and for purchasing drugs (depending on your locality) because of RICO.
RICO was a force for good. At some point. I'm thinking for maybe about fifteen minutes after it was signed into law, and then it went south with the very first sneaky prosecutor to come along. Hell, my biggest disgust for the Patriot Act is reserved for the fact that it was really nothing more than 'expand the powerz of RICO to the nth degree for the War On Drugs Mmmmkay' -- and vice-versa, but again, I suppose that's a rant for another time.