This is not an example of that. It is perfectly within US jurisdiction to prevent US companies from doing business with sanctioned countries. That is the point of a sanction, and US is in good company in choosing to use sanctions as a diplomatic tool.
It is more of an example of how the internet/software industry is too consolidated to the US, and thus other countries are too dependent on the US in those areas. If the internet infrastructure was well distributed, then people in sanction countries could simply get certificates issued by a different CA, and in some cases they can. However, this is complicated by the fact that the list of trusted CAs is dominated by US organizations (Google, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft). If you want to reach western audience you must use certs from a CA approved by them.
Exactly. Ever since I was a kid I never understood how the US has jurisdiction way beyond their borders.
Then I graduated in International Relations and understood that the hole is much deeper than that.
Now it's pretty obvious with all the shit that trump has been doing, but back then me and much of the people I know were oblivious to what US power really means.
US law is something US citizens get to decide. If they think it's "batshit", they should vote accordingly. In this case sanctions seem a pretty good alternative to going to war.
It's clear that those who voted recently for the President are getting what they wanted. Voting made a radical difference, even if the outcome isn't one I like. Whatever "studies" you read are obvious nonsense.
To be fair the US is a bit on an outlier here, as it is not afraid to come down on US companies for things subsidiaries do in other jurisdictions, on questionable grounds. So it would not be enough for Let's Encrypt to operate a European operation to sign European certificates.
Should the US wish to sanction the Hague, somewhat famous for its international court of justice, they would absolutely go after ISRG and it would not be enough for them to sever the ties of the hypothetical Let's Encrypt Europe. That would not be legal or last least highly questionable in most other democratic countries.
"The world should stop trusting the US companies" OTOH...
more optimistic would be "World should decentralize America's trust"
The headline is more « US law is batshit and extends well beyond its borders with real world consequences »
This is not an example of that. It is perfectly within US jurisdiction to prevent US companies from doing business with sanctioned countries. That is the point of a sanction, and US is in good company in choosing to use sanctions as a diplomatic tool.
It is more of an example of how the internet/software industry is too consolidated to the US, and thus other countries are too dependent on the US in those areas. If the internet infrastructure was well distributed, then people in sanction countries could simply get certificates issued by a different CA, and in some cases they can. However, this is complicated by the fact that the list of trusted CAs is dominated by US organizations (Google, Mozilla, Apple, Microsoft). If you want to reach western audience you must use certs from a CA approved by them.
Exactly. Ever since I was a kid I never understood how the US has jurisdiction way beyond their borders.
Then I graduated in International Relations and understood that the hole is much deeper than that.
Now it's pretty obvious with all the shit that trump has been doing, but back then me and much of the people I know were oblivious to what US power really means.
The only countries that do not have sanctions are the ones who lack the economic leverage to do so. All developed countries have them.
US law is something US citizens get to decide. If they think it's "batshit", they should vote accordingly. In this case sanctions seem a pretty good alternative to going to war.
The US is an oligarchy. Voting in the US is completely irrelevant to which laws pass - there have been studies about this.
It's clear that those who voted recently for the President are getting what they wanted. Voting made a radical difference, even if the outcome isn't one I like. Whatever "studies" you read are obvious nonsense.
This is not specific to US law ...
To be fair the US is a bit on an outlier here, as it is not afraid to come down on US companies for things subsidiaries do in other jurisdictions, on questionable grounds. So it would not be enough for Let's Encrypt to operate a European operation to sign European certificates.
Should the US wish to sanction the Hague, somewhat famous for its international court of justice, they would absolutely go after ISRG and it would not be enough for them to sever the ties of the hypothetical Let's Encrypt Europe. That would not be legal or last least highly questionable in most other democratic countries.