Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday September 17 2016, @04:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the on-extraditing-Love dept.

BBC reports:

An autistic man suspected of hacking into US government computer systems is to be extradited from Britain to face trial, a court has ruled. Lauri Love, 31, who has Asperger's Syndrome, is accused of hacking into the FBI, the US central bank and the country's missile defence agency. Mr Love, from Stradishall, Suffolk, has previously said he feared he would die in a US prison if he was extradited.

Also at Ars Technica , The Guardian , and Reuters . Here is the judgment against Love (PDF).


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday September 17 2016, @09:36PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Saturday September 17 2016, @09:36PM (#403233)

    Guy breaks into U.S. property, is getting shipped here to stand trial by those he committed the crimes against. Isn't that what normally happens in the civilized world? This is different why? Because Internet?

    If he committed any other crime against the U.S. or one of our citizens there would be no dispute what the result would be. But this is a controversy. Why? I think I know but lets hear somebody actually try to say why? It should be both fun and instructive.... if anyone has the balls, which is doubtful.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @10:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 17 2016, @10:18PM (#403237)

    Hacking is different because it is a new kind of crime where the morals and motivations are less clear than conventional crime. I believe hacking targets have the responsibility to defend their computers, and society (law enforcement) needn't get involved in most cases.

    • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Saturday September 17 2016, @11:44PM

      by jmorris (4844) on Saturday September 17 2016, @11:44PM (#403246)

      Uh huh. Lemme rewrite that and see if you can see how stupid you were:

      "I believe property owners have the responsibility to defend their homes/businesses, and society (law enforcement) needn't get involved in most cases."

      Unfair? Please explain why? The locks on your home are less secure than Hillary Clinton's Microsoft Exchange Server, to say nothing of the U.S. military's missile control systems, so you are fine with anyone who can circumvent the lock on your door making off with your TV while you are away at work? Are you implying that if you don't have the absolute state of the art in security that 'you were asking for it' and the police shouldn't stir themselves to track down your stuff and punish the thieves? Why are you paying taxes?

      The point is that no purely defensive posture can work, especially against foes who are permitted to try with no cost until they succeed. Unless the defense is paired with a credible threat of a counter attack of overwhelming ferocity there will be no security, and this basic reality is unchanged by transforming the problem space from physical reality into the Internet. Even if Windows were banished forever, no network will ever be safe unless it becomes clear that attacks will be returned with a ferocity sufficient to deter. Attacks against critical military infrastructure should be met with the utmost violence possible.

      A penetration attempt by a hostile nation start on our defense information systems should merit the exact same response as an expedition in force against a physical military facility or a raid on one of our warships. In other words, our enemies should not know if we have vulnerabilities because they are too terrified to look for them. Russia probes NORAD, we turn out the lights in Moscow for a day. An attack by some halfwit should be stamped down on so hard that it makes an example, it is time to send the message that the time when nerds could count coup on .mil hosts for street cred are over. Even shorter, we live in serious times and we need to get serious.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @01:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @01:10AM (#403262)

        I wrote specifically that hacking is different than conventional crime. Obviously, you fail to appreciate the difference.

        If I can get your computer to send me sensitive data, it's equivalent to me meeting your senile grandmother on the street and getting her to spill the beans on how often wet your pants when you were little.

        • (Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday September 18 2016, @02:54AM

          by Francis (5544) on Sunday September 18 2016, @02:54AM (#403275)

          Hacking is only different from conventional crime in that it's less clear where the crime is committed. Hacking is more or less the same thing as mail related crimes for these purposes. They arrested and convicted that guy in BC for mailing pot seeds to the US where he knew they were illegal. Had he just restricted his business to Canada he wouldn't be in prison.

          Bottom line here is that if you don't want to be prosecuted, don't break into shit that you're not supposed to be breaking into consulting with a qualified legal council to tell you if there's an exemption that applies. One of the reasons why cracking and spamming remain such a problem is that certain countries like China, North Korea and Russia refuse to crack down on people engaged in it as long as they're doing it against foreign targets.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @04:33AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @04:33AM (#403294)

            Opinions about morality differ.
            A) We have politicians setting up email servers to circumvent FOIA requests and hackers who publish their emails.
            B) A lot of information wants to be free. Aaron Schwartz was a good guy.
            C) If you can't be arsed to protect your server, don't go whining when you get hacked. Companies should have serious liability for unauthorized information disclosure.
            D) Without hackers, computer security would be so miserable that nations would be wide open to cyberwarfare.

            What is the equivalent of the A,B,D benefits to society for thieves who steal TVs? There is none.

            If someone puts a computer on a public network that ends up spitting out secrets, from an engineering point of view it's clear who's at fault. I'm surprised that the lawyer's point of view is more popular here.

            • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday September 18 2016, @06:26AM

              by jmorris (4844) on Sunday September 18 2016, @06:26AM (#403309)

              A) I don't have a problem if WikiLeaks posts the missing HRC emails because they are already under a court order to be released under both a FOIA request and multiple Congressional orders. Stop thinking the Internet magic pixie dust has anything to do with the morality of the thing. I'd be just as happy if somebody did a nocturnal mission on her residence and 'liberated' for release a cardboard box with the same documents. I have less sympathy for the leak of General Powell's private email, he was not under court order to produce the documents and didn't attempt to use BleachBit on them. And even less for the lowlife types who think 'information wants to be free' and some celebrity gets their naughty pics splashed on the net.

              B) Aaron Schwartz was a moron and a thief. We probably agree that Copyright and Patent law is out of control, government funded research is getting put under private industry lockdown, all of that. Just stealing it all and putting up a .torrent is not the solution.

              C) See my reply in this thread. If you could be bothered to think a half second you would realize how dumb you are on this.

              D) If we expected physical security to meet this standard we would all live in fortresses with moats, hardpoints with fifty caliber machines gun mounts on each corner, fully interlocking camera views, laser defense systems, killbots, and full time security forces. Then we would back that up with a subscription to a shared neighborhood mortar battery, and squad of extra tough goons ready to airlift in when you send up a flare. Because you would be telling anyone taking less precautions that it was their own fault. And what sort of security a bank would need is just nuts. It is daft.

              In the physical world you can't try for hundreds of hours to defeat a security system. Imagine if you could just walk into your local bank with power tools and have a go at the vault and the guards had to just watch you until you actually breached the door. Or walk around casing the joint, taking pictures, making notes, opening up access hatches to get a look at the wiring, etc. And nobody could stop you until you actually stole something. No, we need to treat attempts to enter a restricted system as the same crime as if it succeeded with 'attempted' prefixed. Give em most of the sentence plus tell the other inmates they are screwups who couldn't even pull off the job so they are on the bottom of the pecking order.

              That said, current network security needs a serious rethink. It is pretty pathetic.

              What is the equivalent of the A,B,D benefits to society for thieves who steal TVs? There is none.

              Dunno, but you can't have a proper riot without everybody getting a TV out of the deal. I don't understand though, you will need to consult one of the Progressives who post here about the logic of it, they all seem to think it is a vital civil right though.

  • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Saturday September 17 2016, @11:59PM

    by dyingtolive (952) on Saturday September 17 2016, @11:59PM (#403248)

    It's different because usually we just drop a bomb on them via drone, I guess.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 18 2016, @02:52AM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 18 2016, @02:52AM (#403274) Journal

    "stand trial by those he committed the crimes against. Isn't that what normally happens in the civilized world?"

    No, it isn't what normally happens.

    White dude commits a crime against an elderly woman in Harlem - the local populace isn't permitted to enforce justice on that white dude.

    Black dude commits a crime against a hot white chick in the Deep South - the KKK isn't permitted to enforce justice on that black guy.

    In fact, trials in the US are sometimes moved into a different jurisdiction because the defendant can't expect to get a fair trial locally.

    The concept that you aren't to be judged by your victims is pretty firmly entrenched in law. You're to stand before an impartial judge, an impartial jury, and to verbally battle your accusers.

    The idea that the US government can drag anyone they want into their own home turf for lynching is repugnant.

    I do believe that the US and UK could and should have reached an agreement long ago to try their own citizens in their own countries for crimes committed against the other nation. That's the sensible thing to do. It's the humane thing to do.

    This guy is about thirty? Let's presume that his parents are about fifty. Let us also presume that they are not wealthy. What are the chances of them taking advantage of visitation opportunities, during and after the trial?

    If he had been apprehended within the US, the story would be quite different.