firemanbob

I didn't think it did.

..........................

Its a pity they didn't think of doing that in Africa, just think how many lives could have been saved.

Its odd that because a Google search does say that a website can be created for specific country access only and that others countries can be blocked.

Only if it isn't treated early, and to date there have been no reported cases of human-to-human transmission of rabies. The evidence suggests otherwise. But not direct contact with the person infected with Ebola, so Just like the flu it can be spread when they sneeze, cough, bleed, sweat.

I agree, are you saying that website owners have no means to block users?

Because it needs to be contained not allowed to spread, the further it spreads that harder it will be to contain and our goal should be to stop it spreading round the world.

Yes providing that aid workers that come into contact with Ebola are treated and quarantined in Africa or on an hospital ships, and not brought back to the UK for treatment. Before they return home they should be quarantined and screened to make sure they are 100% clear of Ebola.

I agree, rabies isn't as bad as ebola and the precautions to prevent the spread of rabies into the UK are more extreme than the measure to prevent the spread of ebola into the UK.

The service he provided was in Amsterdam and the only way of accessing that service was for you to go to Amsterdam, so it isn't comparable to someone providing an internet based service that is accessible in the other countries. If he opened a shop in the UK then he should be obliged to follow UK laws. I don't know much about website construction and accessibility but from what I can gather it isn't impossible to construct a website that is only accessible from within the country of operation. So it would appear that he could have easily prevented American users from accessing his site. Choose which countries you want to ban and any visitors from that country get a HTTP/403 error with the standard message "Forbidden - Users from your country are not permitted to browse this site."

That would make more sense if you explained why you hold that opinion.

If someone went to the US to rob a bank would you expect them to be prosecuted by the US? If the same person robbed the same bank but used a computer in the UK, why wouldn't it be appropriate to prosecute them in the US?

Its not an issue unless they let them back into the UK without first making them spend a month in quarantine and if any of them catch Ebola they should be treated on the RN hospital ship and not in the UK. We took more precaution to stop Rabies entering the country.

Because he ignored their request to close the site down, ignored their threat of prosecution, created a new site when they closed the old one down, by the sounds of it he was a cocky sod that thought he could get away with flouting the law for profit.

That fact that the site existed for the purpose of allowing people from all over the world to access pirate film means he was offering a service, from what I can gather he was asked to close the site down, warned that he faced prosecution if he didn't, he ignore the warning so the US shut the site down, he created another one so the US decided to prosecute him.