Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Monday February 05 2018, @07:11PM   Printer-friendly
from the case-cracked dept.

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


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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 06 2018, @02:46AM (13 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 06 2018, @02:46AM (#633597) Journal

    This guy was neither an American citizen nor in America when the supposed crime was committed,

    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)

    by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:37AM (#633631) Journal

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:47AM (#633635)

      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

        by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 06 2018, @05:10AM (#633639) Journal

        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)

      by deimtee (3272) on Tuesday February 06 2018, @02:16PM (#633816) Journal

      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 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

        by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 06 2018, @03:55PM (#633886) Journal

        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)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:23PM (#633919) Journal

      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.

      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.

      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?

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @06:33PM (#634009)

        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.

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 06 2018, @07:10PM (#634038) Journal

          For example, how many USians think the NSA accessing Merkel's phone data was criminal?

          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

        by sjames (2882) on Tuesday February 06 2018, @09:58PM (#634119) Journal

        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)

    by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday February 06 2018, @06:18AM (#633662) Journal

    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)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 06 2018, @03:59PM (#633891) Journal

      The sooner Americans get the notion through their head that the world is not our jurisdiction

      Committing crimes on US soil, even when you're in another country when you do it, is within US jurisdiction.

      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

      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?

      could be spent on bridges, roads, healthcare, education, etc. at home employing people here.

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @06:37PM (#634010)

        Committing crimes on US soil, even when you're in another country when you do it

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 06 2018, @07:08PM (#634035) Journal

          Nope, you can't have it both ways. How can one both "commit a crime on US soil" and "not be in the country"?

          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.

          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.

          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.