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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.