I (a layman) believe that part of the "global" scope of the law is to enable actions at home (and some pressure).

If they want to order ISPs to block services there needs to be some legal framework to do so. "We contacted them, they didn't respond, now we need to revert to blocking" sounds pretty convincing to me.

For your other argument I'll ask the question I ask anytime this comes up: How would you propose laws/regulations on online services are enforced if not (at least in principle) globally?

Order local ISPs to block the site, forbid companies and/or individuals with local presence from doing business with the site, or I dunno, maybe require everyone in the country to install an MITM cert like some backwater autocracy. Not really my problem how you want to run your own country. No country should have the right to enforce laws globally.

It's quite ironic that they would have an easier time enforcing that if they were still part of the EU and could have been the deciding factor towards more regulation faster.

The EU is big and rich enough to force Big Tech into submission under threat of loosing the market.

Well, it's not ironic. That's one of the main reason why countries form coalition: to increase their collective bargaining power globally.

The ironic part is that parts of the pro Brexit movement were convinced (from their messaging at least) that it worked the other way around.

It's all trade offs.

Even in the most dystopian sci-fi future where a hostile and totalitarian government watches everything everybody does, they would still use the information to investigate boring everyday crimes.

The (non rethoric) question is, are people willing to pay the increasing price of non-crime related surveillance as we see diminished security margins.

I would bet a little bit of money that this is still illegal because you cheated yourself access to a service that is clearly meant to be paid and usually requires agreement (as indicated by the captive portal). Sounds like fraud to me.

As far as I know courts in most jurisdictions are allowed to look at a case in its entirety and that won't look good for you.

A defense like "I thought it was just an config error and couldn't possible imagine that someone would want payment" doesn't sound very plausible to me in particular if it comes from an IT expert who just used sophisticated means to surgically circumvent the block.

In this particular cases of course they confessed the "crime" while bragging about it in their post.

Now what if a random person downloaded an app called "Internet anywhere" from their store and it justed worked? Much muddier because they wouldn't even know it was circumventing anything. For all they know it could be a deal between Air Canada and the app vendor.

The threat model seems to be "there are other email providers beside Google. How can we change that?"

Not necessarily a threat model that benefits you

But that is exactly how it works.

Middle Eastern countries are not able to convince e.g. the US or any of the European Countries to extradite their citizens (or sometimes legal residents) for violating the moral codes of let's say Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.

Because these countries know that (and becaue of diplomatic consequences) the law and/or government there doesn't even try it. But if the CEO of a porn site travels there he can and most likely will be held accountable. Tha

If it's a crime in both jurisdiction prosecution is certainly a possibility and happens regularily (or both countries cooperate to convict people without extradition)

Ultimately the United States have a lot more diplomatic sway over the world than some random country and that's why they can and do ask for a lot more.

If you ever need an example of everday US soft power that it is.

The US has a huge reach in the western (and global) world and can impact you in a lot of creative and legal ways (e.g. prevent Google / Apple / Microsoft from offering services to you).

I remember this was an issue for The Pirate Bay but so far as I remember they were forced to go through the Swedish court system. It’s been ages since I read about it though so I might be missing something.

As Afghanistan has recently disconnected their Internet they seem to have done exactly that within their sphere of influence (which is limited to their borders).

So you are entirely right any country can do that at any time. Most countries don't have a way to enforce it on you or your users.

You can absolutely take that stance and be fine as long as you never get into the sphere of influence of UK law enforcement for potentially a very long time.

If they get hold of you your interpretation of who sent what doesn't matter but theirs does. They can absolutely hold you until your fine is paid or you spend and equivalent amount of time in prison.

Many people like to vacation in the UK or Europe (one diverted flight away) and they might decide that it's better to just block users and be done with it. Some people may even happily pay a small fine incurred before the block.

Or they simply decide to pay the fine for the short duration they were not in compliance.

I would do that (after appealing) and be done with it.

Ultimately if enough businesses decide it isn't worth the bother than the restrictions will disappear.