Re:Woman allegedly impersonated prosecutor, dropped charges ...
by AnthonyMouse on Wednesday October 28, 2020 @06:55PM
(#24925125)
> They are different between regions but often regions band together and synchronize their regulations.
This is, as a general rule, catastrophically worse. Because then the only parties with input into the rules are the largest organizations who can successfully lobby an inter-governmental body and they (unintentionally or on purpose) promote rules that work for the largest organizations and annihilate smaller ones.
It also tends to make the rules much more complicated, because each of the individual jurisdictions have their pet issues they want to graft onto the unified system, so now instead of having some obscure and poorly conceived rule only applying in Russia or Egypt, it ends up on page 641 of the unified rules.
Compare this to some kind of rational system where the rules that apply are those of the jurisdiction where the server is located and then if you don't like the rules in Iran or California, you use the services hosted somewhere else. And the services that really are targeted at your jurisdiction end up locally-hosted anyway for the efficiency advantage unless your jurisdictions rules are so oppressive that they overcome it, in which case "Chinese dissidents use servers in the US or South Korea" is a valuable release valve.
And if you're fine with people using a VPN to use services that don't comply with their own jurisdiction's rules anyway, you should be fine with that. Because the only difference is to deprive the majority of their agency if they can't figure out how to work a VPN.
This is, as a general rule, catastrophically worse. Because then the only parties with input into the rules are the largest organizations who can successfully lobby an inter-governmental body and they (unintentionally or on purpose) promote rules that work for the largest organizations and annihilate smaller ones.
It also tends to make the rules much more complicated, because each of the individual jurisdictions have their pet issues they want to graft onto the unified system, so now instead of having some obscure and poorly conceived rule only applying in Russia or Egypt, it ends up on page 641 of the unified rules.
Compare this to some kind of rational system where the rules that apply are those of the jurisdiction where the server is located and then if you don't like the rules in Iran or California, you use the services hosted somewhere else. And the services that really are targeted at your jurisdiction end up locally-hosted anyway for the efficiency advantage unless your jurisdictions rules are so oppressive that they overcome it, in which case "Chinese dissidents use servers in the US or South Korea" is a valuable release valve.
And if you're fine with people using a VPN to use services that don't comply with their own jurisdiction's rules anyway, you should be fine with that. Because the only difference is to deprive the majority of their agency if they can't figure out how to work a VPN.