SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The UK high court has finally ruled on the extradition of Lauri Love, the Finnish-British student accused of cracking U.S. government websites. He will not be extradited to face trial in America. The court accepted both of the main arguments that there is no reason he cannot not be tried in England and that he might suffer serious damage to his health if he were extradited.
Source: Hacking Suspect Lauri Love Wins Appeal Against Extradition to US
Previously: Lauri Love to be Extradited to the U.S.
Lauri Love's Appeal Will be Heard in the UK on November 28th and 29th
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Cracking Suspect Lauri Love Wins Appeal Against Extradition to US
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 44 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Our business is run on trust. We trust you will pay in advance.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @09:12PM (31 children)
He could have avoided being tried in the US by not committing a crime in the US. There's no question that he did what he's accused of, and had he just allowed extradition, it's likely that he'd already be out of prison by now. And that's assuming he was found guilty, which isn't necessarily the case. He might well have been able to plea bargain it down to a suspended sentence or community service.
It's hardly only the US that wants to prosecute people like that, this is hardly the first time that the UK decided to fuck us out of our ability to try people that committed crimes against us. Magrahi is a pretty good example, he was allowed to live for years after being released by the Scots on compassionate grounds even though he murdered hundreds in the Lockerbie bombing.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @09:51PM (8 children)
> He could have avoided being tried in the US by not committing a crime in the US.
How is this always a one-way street? By that logic, pretty much the entire population of US and Europe should be extradited to Saudi Arabia/China/Russia/Thailand/etc.
If he broke British laws by cracking those websites, he should be tried in the GB. If he broke US laws, tough luck - unless he was physically in the US at the time, he's not under US jurisdiction, for fuck's sake! This "world police" shit is ridiculous.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 06 2018, @01:29AM (7 children)
For what offense? Note the distinction of committing a crime in that country.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:27AM (6 children)
Lauri Love has never visited the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:44AM (5 children)
The servers were in the US therefore, that's the proper place to consider the crime committed. Making the crime where the perpetrator is, makes it basically impossible to enforce computer crimes as many countries won't prosecute their own citizens for crimes committed against foreign bodies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday February 06 2018, @05:05AM
So if you make any comment on a website that turns out to be physically in Singapore, you won't mind being extradited to face trial for insulting the king, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @08:21AM (3 children)
And the people who saw those drawings of the Prophet Mohammed were in Saudi Arabia, and thus everyone who posted those drawings are just as guilty of breaking Saudi laws against "making available".
Whether we are talking about attacking a server or posting a picture, it's all communication. Communication that just happens to cross a border and be illegal at the destination. If we apply the laws of the destination country, we need to do that consistently.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 06 2018, @03:52PM (2 children)
No, breaking into a server is not communication. You might as well say that breaking into someone's house is communication.
Still in Saudi Arabia.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @08:44PM (1 child)
Since he has never been to the USA I find it hard to believe he broke into anything there.
He may have sent messages to a server in the the USA but that is just communication. Just like sending images of Mohammed fucking the Thai king would be illegal in Thailand and SA.
That those messages caused the server to do things its owners didn't want might make those messages unlawful in the UK, but if so then the crime of sending those messages occurred in the UK.
If you don't like what messages from someone in another country do to your servers, then don't accept them.
You should not get to extradite someone just because you don't like what they are doing in their home.
Also can you really not see the difference between sending packets of information across the internet and flying to Cleveland to attack your house with a crowbar?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 06 2018, @09:20PM
Computer intrusion via the internet doesn't require physical visits - you're doing it wrong. And the claim is that he downloaded information from those servers. So not communication, if the accusations are correct.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Monday February 05 2018, @10:08PM (16 children)
He did what he did in his own country, not in the US.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 06 2018, @01:35AM (15 children)
Let's consider this hypothetical example. I fly to another country and wire a bunch of funds from my employer's accounts to a private one of my own. And then fly back. All good because I didn't steal their money in the employer's country, right?
It's silly to propose such rules in a world where one can easily commit a large variety of crimes from anywhere in the world. Shop around for the jurisdiction which is least likely to care and do the crime there.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @01:50AM (14 children)
This guy was neither an American citizen nor in America when the supposed crime was committed, unlike in your example where you would still be a citizen of the country of the person you wronged. The US simply has no jurisdiction here.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 06 2018, @02:46AM (13 children)
And no one has yet to explain why that matters or should matter. As to the "supposed" nature of the crime, why should it be legal to break into computer systems from other countries? As I noted in my earlier reply, this naturally extends to anything else that could be considered crime, like embezzlement or theft.
And there's always the obvious rebuttal that the US did indeed pursue justice legally via extradition. The UK too considers such things crimes. And the judge in question could and perhaps should have approved the extradition request.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:37AM (8 children)
It isn't in this case. He is subject to UK law and will have to face the consequences in the UK.
But in general, just how many sets of kooky national laws do you think the whole world should memorize? People should be subject to the laws of their home country and to some degree the country they are physically in.
The alternative is that you might one day use a forbidden word on some site somewhere where using that word is subject to prison time. Perhaps you didn't even realize the server was in that country since it had a .com domain name. Would you care to be extradited to that country to stand trial in an unfamiliar legal system and face what any westerner would consider an outrageously disproportionate punishment?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:47AM (1 child)
You just memorize the laws for the server you're breaking into. Or, better yet, you don't break into servers.
If you want to post something defaming the Thai king on servers outside of Thailand, that's your own business and likely legal. But, if you post those defamatory comments to a server in Thailand, then I fail to see why they shouldn't get a shot at prosecuting you.
It's not like the domain name has some sort of address which can be used to know what country it's located in is freely available to the public.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 06 2018, @05:10AM
It's also not like the server necessarily has a domain name that reflects the country it's located in.
A lot of U.S. servers have a .fm domain, for example. Many servers around the world have .com addresses.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday February 06 2018, @02:16PM (1 child)
The only argument I would have with your comment is the part I bolded . Are you saying that foreigners should be exempt from some laws even while physically in the country?
Every example I can think of (tax/draft/voting) they are, and should be, subject to the law. The relevant law itself takes into account their residency/citizenship/tourist status.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 06 2018, @03:55PM
I think tourists should be cut a little slack in cases where they inadvertently break the law IF their actions or inactions would have been legal in their own country. In general, allowances need to be made for the significant difficulties presented by a trial under an unfamiliar justice system an the burden of being incarcerated outside of one's home country.
For example, the 10 tourists in Cambodia in jail awaiting trial for basically dirty dancing at a club. They face up to a year in jail.
That isn't to say there should be no consequences. For example, for minor offenses they should probably just be expelled from the country, perhaps being barred from returning. In cases where a tourist has done something that also violates the laws of their home country, it may be reasonable (if their country agrees) that they be tried or serve their sentence at home.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:23PM (3 children)
So people should be allowed to break non-kooky laws? There's plenty wrong with US laws on computer intrusion (for example, criminalizing terms of service violations [theguardian.com]), but breaking into Department of Defense computers in another country and making off with data, isn't one of those things. That would be near universally considered a crime.
Perhaps we should look up how extradition works [wikipedia.org]? It discusses obstacles to extradition, such as the crime usually must be considered a crime in both the state which has captured the suspect and the destination country. That happened here. That would rule out virtually all the criticism in this thread, including yours.
And of course, let us note that the suspect was permitted to be tried in the UK instead for reasons that had nothing to do with your complaints.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @06:33PM (1 child)
It is also near universally celebrated. For example, how many USians think the NSA accessing Merkel's phone data was criminal?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 06 2018, @07:10PM
Not relevant in a court of law. What is relevant is that nearly everyone treats such actions of their spies as legal.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday February 06 2018, @09:58PM
Note what I said though. Love IS being held responsible. He will be tried in the U.K. and is found guilty will serve his time in the U.K. He isn't getting away with anything. Being tried in a foreign country with an unfamiliar legal system and subsequently serving time outside of one's own society and quite likely beyond the reach of family visitation is intrinsically more harsh than the same process would be for a person in their own country.
(Score: 5, Informative) by hemocyanin on Tuesday February 06 2018, @06:18AM (3 children)
The sooner Americans get the notion through their head that the world is not our jurisdiction, the better off the rest of the world will be and the better off the American populace will be because all that money we burn up creating terrorists by randomly bombing schools, hospitals, and weddings, could be spent on bridges, roads, healthcare, education, etc. at home employing people here.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Tuesday February 06 2018, @03:59PM (2 children)
Committing crimes on US soil, even when you're in another country when you do it, is within US jurisdiction.
Yes, that's a loathsome thing, but what's "random" about it? Do you really think someone is throwing darts at a board or other random process, and then bombing what happens to be a wedding?
Let us note that ample amounts are already spent on such things, and one key problem of that spending has been that it made the services in question more expensive.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @06:37PM (1 child)
Nope, you can't have it both ways. How can one both "commit a crime on US soil" and "not be in the country"?
You could also say that the DoD was negligent in exposing its data to other countries, and that this particular freedom fighter just picked it up in England.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Tuesday February 06 2018, @07:08PM
How can you ask that question when the story just demonstrated how it can be done. Computer networks allow you to commit crimes at a distance.
Blaming the victim. Modest degrees of negligence don't excuse crimes. You need something pretty epic, like Trump non-sarcastically inviting the world's hackers to give it a try or the DoD never persecuting computer intrusions for decades.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday February 05 2018, @11:18PM (4 children)
How many Americans are extradited to shithole countries around the world? If I hack an Iranian site, and I'm exposed, is the US going to send me to Iran for trial? I don't think so.
How many Americans have been surrendered to the World Court for alleged "War Crimes"? (Jesus H - that would be a real mess - starting with that collateral murder video, which shows not one single war crime, we would be surrendering dozens of people!)
Have we extradited ANYONE to North Korea?
If you expect for nations around the world to surrender random citizens to us whenever we demand, then we must reciprocate by surrendering our citizens upon demand. Fair is fair, right? Treaties and agreements are supposed to be reciprocal, right?
This particular dilrod has never been to the US. He has never crossed our borders. He has never made a statement to US Customs authorities. He has never eluded our Border Patrol. He hasn't even spit on our sidewalks, never mooned a preacher in the US, or flipped the bird to a US Senator/Congressman during a parade. HE IS SIMPLY NOT SUBJECT TO US JURISDICTION!!
Maybe he committed a crime. If so, he should stand trial - within the jurisdiction where he allegedly committed that crime.
Justice is served with this decision. The American sense of indignant vengeance is not served.
I don't think much of the British justice system. For starters, I don't recognize any lord of anything, not even the lordy-dude who made this decision. But, in this case, he got something right.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday February 06 2018, @12:54PM (3 children)
> For starters, I don't recognize any lord of anything, not even the lordy-dude who made this decision.
You do realise that Lord Chief Justice is an appointed position? In the same vein, the Prime Minister is "First Lord of the Treasury".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 06 2018, @11:16PM (2 children)
What I may or may not realize about appointed positions has no bearing on my contempt for the use of the word. I recognize only one Lord, and he would be the Lord of Creation. And, I have my doubts about him sometimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07 2018, @07:55AM
Think of it this way, in the UK (and somewhat in Aus and Canada as well) the word lord in an appointed position is not religious, it actually means that there is no superior position in that organisation.
The "lord blah blah of whoop-de-doo" may be overruled by parliament, or in some cases by the monarch, but otherwise is in charge of that organisation.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday February 07 2018, @11:58AM
Okay no problem. Just don't go eating any Pasta for I only recognize one Pasta and he would be the Pasta of creation. Spaghetti is right out.