The problem I see with this is that one doesn't need to agree to be bound by the social contract of an individual government to be prosecuted.
In the physical world, if you don't agree to the laws of a country, don't live there. It is that simple. In our digital world, people from all over the world can connect to my website even if that isn't my intention. It would be incredibly hard to block all users from a certain country from accessing my website or using my service, especially if I don't require any payments.
Also, what extent does "effecting people/business on our soil then you are accountable to our laws" pertain to somebody. If I have information that is legal in my country but then somebody uses that information to harm somebody in their country, am I accountable? After all, without the information from my site, perhaps this individual wouldn't have harmed anybody.
I wonder if other countries could start using the US's liberal interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act against the US citizens/residents to protect their site. If a website puts in their Terms of Service that the site is only for non-United States residents only, would that rid them of this responsibility? If somebody from the US visits the site and the DoJ believes that the site is effecting the people/business on their soil and that the company should be held accountable then the company could have the DoJ prosecute the user based on the Terms of Use violation.
> In the physical world, if you don't agree to the laws of a country, don't live there. It is that simple.
No, it's not that simple. Your statement shows no empathy and lacks context. Is it that simple to leave North Korea? If I tried to leave the US now, they'd shoot me. I'd need to have arrangement with the country I'm immigrating to, pay a bunch of fees, etc. And why should I, a peaceful human being, have to leave when a single entity claims such vast areas of land? It's unfair and people's blind (probably tribalistic) acceptance of that idea is sad.
I never suggested people do that, I'm saying that that is the only surefire way (for the most part) to escape the laws in the country that you are currently in. If you live in a country, it is generally expected you follow those laws. That is my point, not "love it or leave it". I apologize that it came off that way.
"Don't live there" is NOT that simple in the real world. How many people in North Korea want to live there? China? Germany during WW2? I'd guess that the majority of the world's population does not have a realistic chance to change what country they live in.
I don't think I was clear with my comment on the simplicity. What I meant was that the solution to avoid the laws of a certain country is simple, leaving as not being in a physical jurisdiction prevents you from being held accountable (pre-internet). I realize that the task of leaving a country isn't simple nor is it something to be taken lightly.
> Also, what extent does "effecting people/business on our soil then you are accountable to our laws" pertain to somebody. If I have information that is legal in my country but then somebody uses that information to harm somebody in their country, am I accountable? After all, without the information from my site, perhaps this individual wouldn't have harmed anybody.
The example you give ("without the information from my site...") is what's called a "but for" test. That is not the test for effects in this context. The test has an intent element. Not only must your actions have some effect in a different jurisdiction, but you must have at some level intended them to.
Let's say that Thailand has a king and that publishing a caricature of the king on the Internet is punishable by death. Meanwhile, I'm an American and I make a website in the Unites States that I call kingofthailand.com that shows nothing but caricatures of the king of Thailand. Am I getting deported?
In the physical world, if you don't agree to the laws of a country, don't live there. It is that simple. In our digital world, people from all over the world can connect to my website even if that isn't my intention. It would be incredibly hard to block all users from a certain country from accessing my website or using my service, especially if I don't require any payments.
Also, what extent does "effecting people/business on our soil then you are accountable to our laws" pertain to somebody. If I have information that is legal in my country but then somebody uses that information to harm somebody in their country, am I accountable? After all, without the information from my site, perhaps this individual wouldn't have harmed anybody.
I wonder if other countries could start using the US's liberal interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act against the US citizens/residents to protect their site. If a website puts in their Terms of Service that the site is only for non-United States residents only, would that rid them of this responsibility? If somebody from the US visits the site and the DoJ believes that the site is effecting the people/business on their soil and that the company should be held accountable then the company could have the DoJ prosecute the user based on the Terms of Use violation.