SoylentNews

Cracking Suspect Lauri Love Wins Appeal Against Extradition to US

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

canopic jug writes:

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

• Re:extradition ruling Re:extradition ruling (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 06 2018, @04:23PM (3 children)

  by khallow (3766) 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.

  Parent

• Re:extradition ruling Re:extradition ruling (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?

  Parent

  • Re:extradition ruling (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 06 2018, @07:10PM

    by khallow (3766) 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.

    Parent

• Re:extradition ruling (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.

  Parent