No. My equivalences are exactly the same. I am not applying state laws to an international framework, I am applying long standing international legal principles to a an international framework. when a country does something stupid, like you describe, you have two choices - International treaties and the penalties spelled out in them, or WAR.

Perhaps you have heard of it.

Which is exactly what is happening right now with ISIL. When countries get out of hand, we have two choices - diplomatic punishment or military punishment. You on the other hand, seem to think we can call their mommy and have them punish them.

Yes, the US works with Interpol to stop cybercrime. Bit you demonstrate total ignorance of how that works. You've been watching way too many movies and think that's how it works. If you were aware of how Interpol actually you would realize it proves me correct, as they take a lot of effort to avoid extra-territorial jurisdiction.

I am not outside of my depth, I work in the legal field, and my stepfather is a defense lawyer for international criminals. I have had long discussions about what is and is not legal - and which countries obey those laws and which countries ignore them.

So to educate someone that clearly knows very little about how international law works, particularly Interpol, here is a short education

1. Interpol is not some kind of magic international police. Countries - and not all of them - willing sign treaties, agreeing with a set of rules govern how it works. The participating countries then change their own laws to do what the treaty says. Note treaties, not national laws control Interpol. The treaties in question (like all such treaties) specify what happens if the country signs the treaty but does not change their own laws in a timely fashion.

2. Interpol does NOT HAVE ANY POLICE. There are no Interpol cops. No SWAT, not even traffic cops. They provide training and communication between national police. That's it. So when a crime takes place in say Sweden, committed by a band of criminals that reside in Finland, Sweden does not send cops to Finland. Finland does not send cops to Sweden. Sweden investigates, gets an extradition order, and sends information to their Interpol office. That office sends it to all their other offices, and notifies Finland. In Finlnd, the standard, regular Finish police go and arrest the criminals. Once the Finish cops arrest them, the criminals go through the Finish legal system, where they are either extradited to Sweden or a Finish judge say no.

You live in a movie based fantasy world that does not exist. There are NO EXTRA TERRITORIAL INTERPOL COPS.

I never said it was. In fact I will outright agere that it is not illegal for a company to use a VPN. Nor is it illegal to use a glove when firing a weapon, nor is it illegal to burn that glove.

But it IS illegal to destroy evidence. The second you do that, it becomes a crime. So if your burn a glove that was connected to a crime, that action becomes illegal. Totally legal actions, when taken in furtherance of a crime become illegal. And the use of a VPN you describe would be a crime.

No offense, but you are making assumptions about the legal system that indicate you don't know jack shit about how it works.

Knowledge of tcp/ip etc is irrelevant to the legal code.

I did not oversimplify, nor did I make a technical misunderstanding.

I simply applied long standing, generally accepted legal principles in use for hundreds of years to current issues.

I repeat - the fact that technology now allows people to hide the fact that they are breaking the law does not invalidate the law.

Here, let me explain is to you in a simple manner. 1) Online poker is illegal in certain countries (The DOJ says the US is one of them).

2) But it is legal in England.

3) If you personally set up a VPN to make it seem like people are playing London, when in fact they are playing online poker from Utah, then YOU HAVE COMMITTED A CRIME. Even if you yourself never play online poker, only renting out your VPN to your neighbors.

This is a very simple legal concept. Not that hard to understand. Legal actions become criminal when used in furtherance of a crime. Perhaps you have heard of the words "accessory to a crime"? That is what you are describing.

Some people use a glove when firing a gun to prevent fingerprints and gunpowder residue. Then they burn the glove.

Similarly, it is possible to switch your license plate for that of a car that has a similar color and make, then speed. When you get home, switch it back.

The ability for a criminal to hide their crimes is not relevant to this discussion.

If you think that someone eating a BLT or handing out fliers can legally get you deported and beheaded than you need to take some legal courses.

The existence of illegal actions do not prove that those actions are legal, whether they are done by a citizen or by a country.

No offense, but you are an incredibly ignorant of the law and history. You mention history books but have no idea what is in them. My idea is not 'my idea' - it is century old accepted legal principle that diplomats and ambassadors use to site all the time. The US can't tell Britain what side of the road to ride on, we can't arrest Putin for murdering his opponent, and we can't arrest people in Mexico for playing music so loud that people in America can hear it.

But the internet came along, and ignorant people did not know how to deal with it so they suddenly said forget the principle.

The fact that a new technology comes along and makes it harder to stick by your principle does not mean your principle is stupid, nor does it mean you abandon the principle. It means you work to create a new set of laws to handle that issue. In this case, the proper way to deal with the internet problems is with treaties. Treaties that establish what laws are in each country.

If the treaties don't work, you go to war against that country. That's why we are fighting with ISIL. We disagree with the laws that they created in their own country, so we bomb them.

You seem to think that all problems can be solved by laws. No. Laws apply to their own nations, not other countries. International problems can not be solved by national laws, and this is clearly an international issue - it happened between 2 nations. You solve international problems with either treaties between countries or wars.

Your insistence on solving international problems with national laws is a bad idea. The long established concept of jurisdiction is an intelligent, well tested idea. The fact you can't tell the difference is indicative of your intelligence.

Your objection makes little sense. First of all, International laws are not some strange set of things. Basically, anything that violates International law almost always also violates National laws. Genocide is multiple counts of murder, War Crimes are torture, rape and murder.

International trade law has some severe penalties in taxes.

International criminal law is focused on the severe crimes I mentioned - Genocide and War crimes. There is NO international law against cyber-crime. That does not mean it has no teeth, it means it does not exist as a law.

In fact international criminal law lets the host country decide to prosecute first. It only goes to the international court if the host country would rather not try the case but want the court to try it. As such, it has SEVERE teeth - capable of imprisoning someone for life. But it has a loophole designed to let the host country have a veto on it. If they use the veto they lose reputation - which has some severe trade penalties - and possibly military ones as well.

Your comment about cybercrime being completely legal is true and pointless. As you pointed out already we have NO POWER TO ENFORCE THAT LAW AS IS, so my proposed rule does not create a new problem. It merely stops governments from abusing their current power.

My idea is well thought out, it simply does not solve all possible problems. Similarly, my idea does not cure AIDS, teach kids to read, or double your lifespan.

The question is does my idea cause more new problems or solve them. The answer to that is that it solves problem.

You are incorrect. Mainly because you are ignorant of how international laws work. There are treaties that various countries have agreed to. Specifically, the International Court of Justice is supported by a treaty that over 120 countries have agreed to. By agreeing to that treaty, those countries have ceded legal jurisdiction.

International Law does NOT apply to countries that have not accepted that treaty - including but not limited to China and India.

In addition, the treaty has exceptions that let countries attempt to bring charges in their home country rather than using the international court.

As for Drug cartels, they are rarely involved in International courts, in part because they do rarely violate the laws created by the treaty (which tend to focus on genocide and war crimes) and in part because their home countries would rather bring charges themselves.

So no what I propose would not in any way affect the International court of Justice

Tricky? No. Simple. Same rules apply as when using the phone.

When I get on the phone in California and call Russia, I abide by the laws of California, not Russia. Same for mail.

This is straightforward, simple concept.

Facebook (and the rest of the internet) means you abide by the laws of the country you are in when you post. That part is NOT tricky.

1) Going to another country simply to resign is not the sanest action.

2) We really need a clear International consensu that governments do NOT have extra-territorial jurisdiction. Actions taken in one country should abide by the laws of that country, not any other country - even if it affects the other country. Any country that refuses to abide by this simple rule (I'm including my own beloved United States which routinely violates this simple legal concept.), should have punitive trade restrictions placed on them.

When I'm in New York state, I have to abide by NYS laws, not New Jerseys. Similarly, when I am in the US, I should abide by the US laws, not any other countries.

Years ago, I had to move about $2K between two banks every week. The banks were only about 3 blocks apart. If I wrote a check, it could be delayed by up to a week.

After a few weeks of that, I decided to just walk into the first bank, withdraw the cash, walk to the second bank and deposit it. Every single fucking time I did it, there was always some hassle.

On several occasions, I explained to both bank managers and various middle managers, why I was doing it (because they both sucked). Something would always get it hung up. What should have taken about 10 minutes total could take up to 2 hours.

They are both in the top 10 largest banks in the US. Because of their repeated incompetence, I will never willingly do business with again. I can go in there to take money away from them (legally, of course). I will never have an account with them again.

If you can show that they did, they won't.

As to why it makes sense - the rest of the world uses a first to file system, only the US was different. This harmonizes patent law and makes it more predictable for businesses, which is a good thing. And finally, despite hundreds of posters on Slashdot telling you how big a change this was and how it guts patent law, the switch from first to invent to first to file affects about 20 patent applications per year, out of half a million filed - there were, on average, only 20 interference proceedings each year, which is where there's a dispute on who invented something first. They were horribly expensive (upwards of $30-50k) and time consuming, and they occurred only after you filed your application and went through full examination... so someone could be already out $25k getting an allowable patent and then be hit with another $50k trying to show they invented it before someone else. Instead, now you can just point to the filing date and save money.

Not at all - there's a process called accelerated examination, which, for a substantial fee, pushes your application to the top of the queue. People in fast moving technologies like software tend to go for that, while people in slow moving technologies like pharmaceuticals tend to prefer waiting YEARS, since they're in FDA trials and can't actually sell any product. By allowing a fast track and slow track, everyone benefits.

Because that would make MIT, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, CalTech, etc. very, very sad and gut their research departments.

Do you have a citation for any of your claims? Because I've got a half dozen patent applications on my desk under obviousness rejections, and I'd love to be able to push them aside because the PTO didn't actually issue them.

RTFS. Note the S, not the A. If you had read the SUMMARY, let alone the article, you would see that 850,000 were missing, 200,000 were found in the wallet, leaving 650,000 unaccounted for.

Two hours for a one-way commute? That doesn't sound like a very good life balance. I think if that was our teams that we'd end up doing a mixed online/f2f meeting as if some of the team were remote.

Yep, you can improve acoustics a little with soft furnishings and plants for instance. Bonus is a better environment.

Polycom isn't necessary. I work with two remote scrum teams who both try standing around a shared desktop in their rooms for their stand-ups via Lync. One of them has great audio, the other doesn't. Both are in large echoey rooms. The only difference in systems is their mic and room decoration.

The team in the room we can't hear clearly have resolved the issue by doing all meetings from their desks using headsets. They also now have long drawn out stand-ups. Hmmm, proves the point about standing up.