mike777 Posted May 30, 2015 Report Share Posted May 30, 2015 "Numerous systems use this client server networking model including Web sites and email services. An alternative model, peer-to-peer networking enables all computers to act as either a server or client as needed" Ok, but not sure there need be a client-server network to use the internet. I assume there are other models or that there are other models in the works.---- As far as laws as I mentioned before the law can in theory always be twisted, the police and courts perverted. Popular sentiment to bash FIFA can change rather quickly and turn against the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted May 31, 2015 Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 FWIW, I need to deal with these sorts of legal issues far more than I would like. A surprising number of jurisdictions are passing new sets of laws that require that the servers that are used to provide services to their citizens are located within the same country / jurisdiction. I've seen these laws from Russia, India, multiple countries within the EU, the UK (which may or may not be in the EU), Turkey, Thailand. Officially, the reasons being given involve privacy concerns. I wonder whether the local governments understand how this is going to impact the cost of provisioning services...(If this goes through, its not going to be pretty) This has already happened to some degree. Especially for things that are Personally Identifiable Information. Which can me any recordings of your voice, your name, your account information, etc. This is partially for citizen privacy rights (most first world countries give their citizens more rights with respect to privacy and control of their data as opposed to corporations) and partly to try and keep it out of US intelligence hands (post Snowden - see or this for more information). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted May 31, 2015 Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 OK am I misreading this or are you changing your position now? I guess 90% of our argument boiled down to "internet account" vs "bank account." I was talking about the latter and you about the former.For me, there is no principal difference between an internet account and a bank account. They are physically the same, some bits that are up or down on a server somewhere, that give the holder of the account certain rights. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted May 31, 2015 Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 "Numerous systems use this client server networking model including Web sites and email services. An alternative model, peer-to-peer networking enables all computers to act as either a server or client as needed" Ok, but not sure there need be a client-server network to use the internet. I assume there are other models or that there are other models in the works. The internet is largely defined by the client-server model. The http (Hyper Text Transport Protocol) or https (HTTP secure) that is in front of most URL (Uniform Resource Locator) is a client-server protocol. Moving down a layer TCP (transmission control protocol), which ensures orderly transmission (and retransmission if needed) of packets is also a client-server protocol with a 3-way handshake between the client and the server to establish the connection. Peer to peer is still client-server, just that a host can be a client for one person and a server to someone else (I.e., when I download a torrent I'm the client connecting to servers to download the content. Then after I've downloaded some/all of the content, other people can connect to me as clients to download the content from me, and when they do so I'm the server for them). As for "Arguably, if you are using servers that are based in the US, you are doing something in the US." from hrothgar, that arguably is a big thing. When I do something on my computer, it is only my computer that is directly effected. Then the information needs to go through my computer to my ISP. And then it has an effect on my ISP. Then it is my ISP that connects to other ISP, the ISP in question connects to the server, and only then something happens. But what if all I did was send an email? What if I'm logged in to a shell? What if I merely post something to my web site, and the US server is constantly scraping my web site and processes my posting to take some action (like place a bet). What if I phone someone and dictate to them what to type in to the server? It is all very abstract. It is sort of like if I'm standing in Mexico when I fire the gun, but the bullet hits someone in the US wounding them, and then they travel to Canada for treatment - where they die from complications from the wounds - then did I commit the murder in Canada, US, Mexico, none, all? Where should we bury the survivors. Note that the US doesn't want the place the servers are to be the only place that matters. If I'm in the US and place a bet with a server in the UK, the US doesn't treat that the same as if I fly to a casino in the UK and place a bet there. Similar for copyright pirating and other much nastier online behavior. The really obnoxious ones though are not just the endpoints being in play, but anywhere the packets go, so things like: - what if I'm in Canada and want to place a bet in the UK, and this would be legal in both Canada and the UK, but some/all of the packets between me in Canada and the casino in the UK travel through "internet pipes" in the US. Does this have me break US laws? - what if the NSA is only allowed to warrantlessly spy on US citizen's abroad but not living in the US. But what if a US citizen living in the US is communicating with another US citizen living in the US but some/all of their communication is routed abroad briefly through either Mexico or Canada. Is this now foreign surveillance and okay for the NSA to capture with no warrants? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted May 31, 2015 Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 For me, there is no principal difference between an internet account and a bank account. They are physically the same, some bits that are up or down on a server somewhere, that give the holder of the account certain rights. RikOK so could you give me a straight answer: If I am doing money laundering on a US account but I only press Enter in the internet banking when I am not in the US, am I or am I not justifiably prosecuted by the US justice system? Money laundering is a crime in the US and Switzerland, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted May 31, 2015 Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 OK so could you give me a straight answer: If I am doing money laundering on a US account but I only press Enter in the internet banking when I am not in the US, am I or am I not justifiably prosecuted by the US justice system? Money laundering is a crime in the US and Switzerland, too.The straight answer: The Swiss should prosecute you. That is where you committed your crime. The fact that this is a crime in both the USA and Switzerland does not suddenly make it right for the USA to prosecute. Swiss law applies. That doesn't only involve the decision whether to prosecute, but also, e.g. how the court procedure will take place and what the possible sentence might be. Suppose that German drivers that are speeding on the German Autobahn would be prosecuted by the Dutch legal system (speeding is just as much an infraction in Germany as it is in the Netherlands). Suddenly those poor German BMW drivers would be paying enormous fines. (For those who don't know: speeding fines in the Netherlands are ridiculously high and in Germany ridiculously low.) Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted May 31, 2015 Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 OK so you actually do disagree with hrothgar (he thought breaking US law by laundering money using US bank accounts is grounds enough for prosecution as far as I can tell - he can clarify himself). The speeding limit example is completely different since you have nothing to do with the Netherlands when you are driving the car in Germany (I know now you will come up with the example that I am speeding with a German car so Germany can prosecute anywhere?! No that is not what is going on since the US bank accounts are in the US). A better example would be if I am speeding in Germany with a remote-control car (which let's assume exists and is legal) and I happen to be pushing the buttons just across the border from the Netherlands. Now according to your definition, because I am physically in Enschede I should be prosecuted by the Dutch system although I caused damage in the German system (by increasing the risk of accidents). If I am laundering money on a US bank account, I am doing damage to the US financial system even if I am pushing Enter from Lausanne. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted May 31, 2015 Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 Heh - have just read through 4 and a bit pages of posts, none of which acknowledge one rather important (to my mind) issue: No-one has been convicted of anything yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted May 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 Heh - have just read through 4 and a bit pages of posts, none of which acknowledge one rather important (to my mind) issue: No-one has been convicted of anything yet. Not in this round of it, but people within FIFA have already been banned for related stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted May 31, 2015 Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 Heh - have just read through 4 and a bit pages of posts, none of which acknowledge one rather important (to my mind) issue: No-one has been convicted of anything yet.The DoJ said though that they already have several guilty pleas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted May 31, 2015 Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 Heh - have just read through 4 and a bit pages of posts, none of which acknowledge one rather important (to my mind) issue: No-one has been convicted of anything yet. 4 of the accused have pleaded guilty including sons of Jack Warner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted May 31, 2015 Report Share Posted May 31, 2015 Heh - have just read through 4 and a bit pages of posts, none of which acknowledge one rather important (to my mind) issue: No-one has been convicted of anything yet. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akwoo Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 About who should prosecute (not this is not a determination of innocence or guilt) crimes reaching across borders: 1) The case of remotely controlling a car in Germany can be quite different from money laundering through an account in a US bank. The car is actually in Germany. It's very possible that the money laundering takes place in a Swiss branch of the bank, with managers who are Swiss, with data stored in servers in Switzerland (or, say, India), all denominated in Swiss Francs (or Euros or pounds), with essentially no effect on the US financial system other than the tiny risk this might somehow lead to bank failure. However, it has to be noted that the failure of a major Swiss bank has pretty much just as much effect on the US financial system as the failure of a US bank. 2) In the US, when a crime is committed, generally only the state in which it is committed has jurisdiction. There are two main exceptions. One is when the crime is committed on federal government property, in which case both the state and the federal government has jurisdiction. A second is when the crime crosses state lines in some way, and in this case usually only the federal government has jurisdiction, and the state has no jurisdiction. If I, for example, fraudulently sell a car to someone else in my state, I can be prosecuted only by my state government. On the other hand, if I fraudulently sell a car to someone in another state, and we do business over the telephone, then I can be prosecuted only by the federal government. (If I tow my non-functional car to another state, and then fraudulently sell the car to someone there (without having talked about it from my state beforehand), I can probably be prosecuted by both the state I sell my car in and the federal government.) 3) The US may claim jurisdiction when someone hits 'Enter' on Swiss soil, but there is a very strong safeguard in that the Swiss government (and or courts) have to approve extradition to the US. 4) The current situation in which transnational crimes are covered by multiple overlapping jurisdictions is indeed very messy. Probably it would be best for a series of international treaties to resolve the issue. Setting up an international court would probably not be possible (and leads to a large number of thorny legal issues), but some kind of uniform legal rules and procedures could possibly be established. Setting up procedures (to figure out how to apply the rules in any particular case) is probably harder than setting up the rules. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 lol just to add some content to your joker post, the doj had a conviction rate of 93% in 2012. the guilty pleas notwithstanding, criminal charges are not thrown around lightly from the doj. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 Clearly there is one simple way to reduce corruption in international soccer. Ban international soccer. It will not rid corruption but it will reduce it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 Clearly there is one simple way to reduce corruption in international soccer. Ban international soccer. It will not rid corruption but it will reduce it. I really wanted to reply to this....but then again I like Mike. http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 About who should prosecute (not this is not a determination of innocence or guilt) crimes reaching across borders: 1) The case of remotely controlling a car in Germany can be quite different from money laundering through an account in a US bank. The car is actually in Germany. It's very possible that the money laundering takes place in a Swiss branch of the bank, with managers who are Swiss, with data stored in servers in Switzerland (or, say, India), all denominated in Swiss Francs (or Euros or pounds), with essentially no effect on the US financial system other than the tiny risk this might somehow lead to bank failure. However, it has to be noted that the failure of a major Swiss bank has pretty much just as much effect on the US financial system as the failure of a US bank. 2) In the US, when a crime is committed, generally only the state in which it is committed has jurisdiction. There are two main exceptions. One is when the crime is committed on federal government property, in which case both the state and the federal government has jurisdiction. A second is when the crime crosses state lines in some way, and in this case usually only the federal government has jurisdiction, and the state has no jurisdiction. If I, for example, fraudulently sell a car to someone else in my state, I can be prosecuted only by my state government. On the other hand, if I fraudulently sell a car to someone in another state, and we do business over the telephone, then I can be prosecuted only by the federal government. (If I tow my non-functional car to another state, and then fraudulently sell the car to someone there (without having talked about it from my state beforehand), I can probably be prosecuted by both the state I sell my car in and the federal government.) 3) The US may claim jurisdiction when someone hits 'Enter' on Swiss soil, but there is a very strong safeguard in that the Swiss government (and or courts) have to approve extradition to the US. 4) The current situation in which transnational crimes are covered by multiple overlapping jurisdictions is indeed very messy. Probably it would be best for a series of international treaties to resolve the issue. Setting up an international court would probably not be possible (and leads to a large number of thorny legal issues), but some kind of uniform legal rules and procedures could possibly be established. Setting up procedures (to figure out how to apply the rules in any particular case) is probably harder than setting up the rules.Thanks for that, very informative! I thought the crimes were committed on US branches but I should read up on the issue more (clearly). On 3, if the Swiss refuse extradition but the defendant visits the US later, I guess the US will still arrest him, right? Is that unjustified (let's suppose the US has more than enough evidence to convict and he did cause harm to the US by pressing Enter in Switzerland)? Does it matter whether or not it is a crime in Switzerland? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 Last time I went to Australia I killed some time during the transit in Singapore commiting some cybercrime. I used my British vpn so it is difficult to establish if I used the wifi of the airport or of the plane which was u.a.e. flagged and owned but physically I would probably be in Singapore jurisdiction during ground time while uae jurisdiction while the plane was flying. Or maybe malaysian jurisdiction since it was in malaysian airspace? Since the actual crime action was queued a few hours eearlier it is difficult to say where I was when I made the criminal mouseclicks. These physical location details are of course irrelevant. I think it makes more sense to let it depend on the country of the bank account I used or of the provider that hosted the website where I put my malware. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberyeti Posted June 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 just to add some content to your joker post, the doj had a conviction rate of 93% in 2012. the guilty pleas notwithstanding, criminal charges are not thrown around lightly from the doj. Actually this is not complete info, a number of people from Britain extradited and forced through the US courts plead guilty and plea bargain because they'd be bankrupted if they fought the cases whether they won or lost. It seems the US system doesn't seek to establish guilt, merely to pad the statistics and cause innocent people to plead guilty in these cases, particularly as they tend to extradite the suspects years in advance of the trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 Last time I went to Australia I killed some time during the transit in Singapore commiting some cybercrime. I used my British vpn so it is difficult to establish if I used the wifi of the airport or of the plane which was u.a.e. flagged and owned but physically I would probably be in Singapore jurisdiction during ground time while uae jurisdiction while the plane was flying. Or maybe malaysian jurisdiction since it was in malaysian airspace? Since the actual crime action was queued a few hours eearlier it is difficult to say where I was when I made the criminal mouseclicks. These physical location details are of course irrelevant. I think it makes more sense to let it depend on the country of the bank account I used or of the provider that hosted the website where I put my malware.Now that you confessed to it on an American server, maybe all four countries will try to get you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted June 1, 2015 Report Share Posted June 1, 2015 if they go after you, might find some very innovative ways to put you in jail. I don't think this is paranoia, or at least not entirely.Yeah, Al Capone should have been more careful about paying his taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Blatter RESIGNS!! http://www.theguardian.com/football/live/2015/jun/02/fifa-calls-press-conference-amid-latest-corruption-claims-live http://www.catsvscancer.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/hooray-caturday-cute-cat.gif 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 We did it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Well, I certainly wasn't expecting that. They must have really had him cornered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted June 2, 2015 Report Share Posted June 2, 2015 Now we will see just how corrupt international soccer has become or not. early reports of gambling and fixing of games and bribery and payoffs among many many countries that makes the rot sound deep. Or the fans may just say forget it and let us move on. ONe report said over 1000 killed in building of CUP games in Qutar ..if true it seems not many really care that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.