> Accessing material that has been deemed illegal enough to be the subject of a country-wide block is generally going to be a criminal offense.

That’s not the issue discussed here, I think. We’re not talking about someone circumventing censorship in their own country (which is obviously illegal in your own country).

What we’re talking about here are IP-based country filters imposed by websites such as Netflix or BBC iPlayer, restricting visitors from certain countries to access all or certain content. Circumventing that filter by using a VPN (thereby masquerading as someone in a “permitted visitor country”) is obviously going to be a breach of the terms & conditions of that website and/or license conditions of content made available. But the argument apparently raised by LinkedIn in this case is that this is also a criminal offence of gaining unauthorised access to systems (I.e. legalspeak for what’s colloquially referred to as “hacking”), which would likely lead to (more severe) prosecution and punishment.

From the context, (CFAA, a US law) "VPN to get access to content that is otherwise blocked in your country through an IP Block" wouldn't be referring to using a VPN to bypass blocks imposed by "your local government" or censorship-related issues, but rather circumventing blocks imposed by US-based content providers.

Hypothetical scenario: User outside the United States uses a VPN to access US Netflix content. In doing so, have circumvented Netflix access control mechanism and are accessing the Netflix's computer systems in an unauthorized manner. Unauthorized access to computer systems is a violation of the CFAA. Accordingly, the foreign user is potentially liable for felony criminal charges in the US, just the same as they had "hacked" any other computer system in the US.

Read OP quote again, parent missed the part that shows this is what they are talking about.

>> If the court follows this argument the ...

Op is referring to precedent potentially being set, but I'm not sure it would actually apply in practice. (Different laws)

Country-based IP blocks at content providers (Netflix, other streaming services) relate to their content licensing. They may have purchased the rights to distribute the film in question in the US, but not in Spain, for example. Sure, information wants to be free. But films cost real money to create, and the streaming services have a duty to the people who provide their content.

Just sayin'

Better hypothetical scenario:

User inside the United States uses a VPN to access foreign Netflix content.

Felony obstruction of Netflix's business model? :-)

> the foreign user is potentially liable for felony criminal charges in the US

US law does not apply to non-US citizens. How could a foreigner possibly be liable for anything?

The UK already deported one of their citizens to the US over hacking (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2006/jul/07/news.usne...), so it depends on how much of a backbone your country has.

This particular case did not result in extradition - it was overturned several years later.

So long as you don’t set foot on US soil, or piss off someone enough to get extradited.

Being a foreigner is often enough to avoid the punishment, but it’s not enough to be exempt from the laws.

What the hell? You're telling me some foreign national could actually be extradited to the US over VPN IP nonsense? As if this was as bad as drug trafficking?

I just checked my country's laws. Looks like international drug trafficking is the only reason allowed for extradition. Good to see the people writing these things have some common sense.

It's worth remembering that Mega's founder, Kim Dotcom, is still fighting off extradition attempts for Copyright infringement from New Zealand.

Here's one example:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-charges-greek-national-for-...

The F it doesn't. You are correct that it can be nebulous to apply it to people not currently physically present in the US due to jurisdictional limitations, but there are numerous exceptions.

What? Law applies to the country.

It's always good to do research about VPNs before using/buying them, especially if you're not in the US.

Well in the case in question is a US case, based on US Law, and using CFAA to get around the 1st amendment is indeed scary and should be given more weight than a causal dimssial of "well we hate censorship but...." which calls in the question if you really even hate censorship... I have my doubts

Beyond that this is CLEARLY a bad reading of CFAA, recent US Supreme Court rulings have shown they would prefer a narrow reading of the law instead of a broad one so I hope the lower court recognizes this and shots LinkedIn Down.