The notion of "voluntary protection" is ridiculous. "Here, citizen, use this app to be warned when you're entering areas with drug violence. Now you're protected." Law enforcement isn't only supposed to protect citizens, but also to combat criminality. Many materials are treated very differently whether you're a consumer or distributor. If criminals run an illegal gambling website, drug trading website, revenge porn website, or any other illegal website you might think of, then even under your narrow interpretation of jurisdiction it would be law enforcement's duty to shut down that website's access nationwide, and not rely on some sort of bullshit voluntary protection.
Might want to take that up the the military judges who make decisions about them all the time.
They're extra-judicial in the target countries, but so is what you want to do.
> It's simple enforcement of the law.
It's law enforcement taking action in a foreign country without that country's permission. In violation of their laws.
You're saying it's OK for the US to hack a gambling site hosted in a foreign country because it's illegal in the US. How does that not justify China hacking a pro-democracy website hosted in the US because it's illegal in China?
> "Here, citizen, use this app to be warned when you're entering areas with drug violence. Now you're protected."
The US State Department does exactly that when the area of drug violence is in another country. What are they supposed to do? Invade?
> If criminals run an illegal gambling website, drug trading website, revenge porn website, or any other illegal website you might think of, then even under your narrow interpretation of jurisdiction it would be law enforcement's duty to shut down that website's access nationwide, and not rely on some sort of bullshit voluntary protection.
People have been placing illegal bets by mail since the invention of mail. That has never justified the government in reading everybody's mail, much less bombing Ireland after their local law enforcement doesn't put a stop to it.
That isn't what jurisdiction means. You're describing the digital equivalent of covert operations in a foreign country.
> Without it, the only logical way to protect your population is to erect deep-scanning firewalls and abolishing free traffic across national networks, much like China and Iran are doing.
It would work perfectly well to publish free open source scanning software and allow your citizens to voluntarily use it if they want to be "protected" from such things.
Unless your citizens are the perpetrators rather than the victims, but in that case you haven't got a jurisdictional problem.