Warez Suspect To Be Extradited, After All 677
usefool writes "After the U.S.'s first extradition request against an Australian man was denied, the U.S. appealed that decision and has now won the right to try Hew Raymond Griffiths in the U.S."
the joys of a wired world (Score:1, Insightful)
tho i say for international stuff they should be tried at the hauge
Hello NWO (Score:4, Insightful)
so let me get this straight.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hello NWO (Score:2, Insightful)
Erm, probably just about everyone *outside* the U.S?
Scary ... to say the least! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure I've done SOMETHING that is perfectly legal where I live, that would be sentenced very harshly in other countries. Of course the things I just mentioned are things that "hurt" other people as opposed to the almighty profit of US coorporations, so I suppose that I won't be extradited anytime soon.
Re:the joys of a wired world (Score:4, Insightful)
Under what laws? U.S. Laws? EU laws? Does the hague have to follow U.S. precedents? Do U.S. courts then in turn have to follow hague precedents that interpret U.S. laws? Are judges in the hague then subject to the same oversight as U.S. judges if their rulings on U.S. laws are abusive/incorrect, etc? Or at the least, can the U.S. congress pass a law to overturn a hague ruling? Or what if the hague ruling interprets U.S. Constitutional law? Are U.S. courts then bound by the hague-based interpretation of their constitution?
I'm not trying to flame ya. I'm just trying to imagine the unbelievable super-jumbo supreme sized can of worms you just described in one line....
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not going to touch the definition of crime bit with regards to warez, but I think if you commit a crime, you should be tried by the laws of the country you were in at the time you commited it.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scary ... to say the least! (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be if you did in the US then left the country - depends on the situation and the extradition treaty of the country you fled to.
The idea is that he was committing crimes inside the United States - the fact that he resides in Australia means he needs to be extradited.I fear the fall of the Empire. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. So an Brit who offends Robert Mugabe, apparently an offence in Zimbabwe, should be extradited to stand trial in Harare.
Right.
Under the UN charter, a person cannot be tried for an act which was not illegal at the time and place it was committed.
But then we are talking about the USA (in the article) and we all know how important respect for UN conventions and international treaties are for America...
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
This really isn't as tricky as lawyers make it out to be. In fact, it's because of BSing lawyers that this is even complex. Who comittted the crime? The person, or the bits? Now, where was the person when he comitted the crime?
Yeah, I know fscking lawyers and politicians will argue otherwise, but really, this is truly the most logical way of looking at it.
Re:...doesnt look good (Score:5, Insightful)
American law != International law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hello NWO (Score:4, Insightful)
Likewise, if someone committed bank fraud from Australia against the US, it would hardly be the Australian authorities investigating it, nor would anyone in Australia be damaged-- so it wouldn't exactly be very interesting to Australian prosecutors. Hence we have extradition treaties for this type of thing.
I agree being extradited for being a indiscriminate warez kiddie is a bit extreme.
What about Austrailia??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hello NWO (Score:4, Insightful)
Mugabe can try, but Britain would never allow it. Just like France refuses to extradite the Unicorn Killer. In this case, the U.S. asked Australia to extradite him. They complied. An Australian court said send him to America. Seems like the U.S. respected their laws pretty well.
Behold the power of "Free Trade" (Score:3, Insightful)
America's Free Trade representatives require so many concessions from foreign governments for the pleasure of a "free trade" agreement with the United States.
These government employees have a mandate to spread U.S. style laws across the world. The cost is, of course, the loss of any individuality possessed by participating states.
Regardless of your feelings about the current administration, you should closely scrutinize the actions of some of the most powerful people in the administrative branch... people who have no accountability or oversight.
Re:Scary ... to say the least! (Score:1, Insightful)
A Worst Case Scenario (Score:2, Insightful)
what countries DON'T care about western copyright? (Score:5, Insightful)
So my question is, what country does not? Surely there is a country which simply doesn't care about western copyright, and does not have a system of laws and treaties under which the copyright of another country can cause extradition.
Now, here is the key to satiating my relentless craving for bits and bytes: the violation of copyright exists in the REPRODUCTION or DISTRIBUTION of material protected against such acts except where authorized. It says nothing about owning copyright materials.
Have you noticed that it doesn't matter how many pirate DVD's or videos you have, it is the houses with a thousand BURNERS churning out the pirate goods that get raided? THIS IS THE LAW.
So, I figure I can go to a government in which 100% of American bits and bytes are in the public domain, pay the government-owned publishing house a modest fee, and return with 100,000 pages of everything I'd ever want to read, for example, for pennies on the gram-square-meter.
This is the same as when I buy a jazz CD from 1942 sources that in France is in the public domain. (As I understand it.)
The consumer is NOT LIABLE.
Okay, comments?
Practically a Human Rights Violation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:...doesnt look good (Score:4, Insightful)
Why "unfortunately"? Sidestepping the usual arguments based on the communist manifesto ("information wants to be free"), look at it from another angle.
If the man broke the law, he should face the consequences. He broke into a computer in the USA, so he should be tried there. If it was your home computer that he broke into, you'd be screaming bloody murder, but he broke into a campus system, which somehow makes him a "hero".
He illegally distributed stolen software via this computer in the USA, so he should be tried there.
what's the big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
as RMS succinctly put it at a presentation i attended several months ago: in the US, you can now be sent to prison to be raped for sharing software.
this fact short-circuits any rational discussion one might have about jurisdiction, extradition, etc.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)
That logic?
Re:I fear the fall of the Empire. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:A Worst Case Scenario (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:...doesnt look good (Score:5, Insightful)
According to the article, the ring of which he was allegedly a member made use of machines at MIT. If true, although he didn't physically set foot in the US, he did indeed commit crimes in the US. Moreover, copyright is protected in Australia and most other countries and by international agreements. This doesn't seem to be a case of unreasonably applying local laws to someone elsewhere who doesn't know about them or who has no reason to believe that they are relevant to him.
There are some kinds of net activity that present real jurisdictional problems, e.g. kinds of speech (such as insulting Islam) that are legal in some places but not in others, where an activity that is legal in one place spreads to a place where it is illegal by the normal operation of the internet. As far as I can see, this case doesn't fall into that category. If I sit at my terminal in the US and break into a computer in Australia and do mischief there, I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong and I have made an explicit decision to do it. It didn't just happen in the course of the normal operation of the net. Why shouldn't I be subject to prosecution in Australia?
Re:Live free or go to jail (Score:1, Insightful)
If someone chooses to forfeit their IP rights - or sign them over to a company that pays their salary - then that's their choice; summarily ignoring those rights just because it's inconvenient or expensive for others shouldn't be an option.
IP stands for INTELLECTUAL property; which shouldn't be treated any differently than physical property: if it isn't okay for me to use your car (the product of your labor) without your permission and compensation, why should it be okay for me to use the product of your mind without paying you for it?
Re:so let me get this straight.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the next question is what sort of pressure the US exerts on Austrialia to get de facto legal jurisdiction there, and whether it's consistent with democratic self-rule Down Under. Somehow I doubt Australia would do the same favor for its less "influential" fellow nations.
Re:...doesnt look good (Score:3, Insightful)
Hicks and Habib (Score:5, Insightful)
warez suck (Score:1, Insightful)
Piracy is a natural part of software.. Had it not been for pirated warez years ago, many folks I know wouldn't be using Microsoft anything, but would have been using Linux.
Had it not been for the adoption through piracy of MS Windows and MS Office, many decision makers who run enough IT departments wouldn't be running Microsoft anything today.
Had many design firms not have had Adobe Photoshop available via warez, they would be using GIMP or something else and taking legions of other folks with them to open source solutions...
Software use to be fun and the people behind it use to be a little more down to earth... I guess when your company becomes mega corp and you are worth billions, you need to get an occassional case like this to scare those bad countries like China and Japan into buying real software instead of downloading them as warez.
Everyone knows Oracle didn't sell a single license in Russia years ago even though the country boasted the largest user group.
Warez go a long way... I'd say a majority of folks using software illegally if challenged would never use that software or anything else made by the software company. If people were pushed, the market would change even more and even faster...
Prosecute and terrorize folks and watch more market share and interest move to open source.
Greedy pricks.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:2, Insightful)
He was comparing the extradition of OBL to the extradition of the warez guy. I think this is absurd.
what a great victory! (Score:3, Insightful)
No we can finallay extradite all those US-based spammers and sue them to sh*t from europe, africa and asia!!!!
Re:so let me get this straight.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bugger that. We don't even complain when the US arranges to have our civilians kidnapped and held incommunicado in another foreign country and without trial for three years. Even if they've not committed a crime in that country, or against the US.
We also assist the US in its illegal wars in the (so far) vain hope that we'll score some trade benefits from it.
I'm looking forward to unAmerican thoughts becoming criminalised in the US, so that I can be extradited and tried for this Slashdot post...
Alister
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
In most cases, the place where victims are located has a lot more incentive and ability to prosecute in most cases. This is why extradition agreements exist. At the same time, extradition agreements are generally purposely limited to 'serious' crimes, to prevent their overuse and miscarriages of justice. Unfortunately, criminal violation of copyright has become a much more broadly appliable statute since information technology has come along, and I think that's where the problem is-- the laws are out of date for the problem.
Think of how difficult it would be for Australia to prosecute an Australian for bank fraud committed against citizens in a foreign country, though-- they would have no power to compel witnesses, to subpoena most of the relevent evidence, etc. Not to mention that most prosecutors would care a lot more about cases where their direct constituents are the victim, rather than foreigners. It would be virtually impossible to prove a case under such circumstances.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:4, Insightful)
You must be kidding. When was the last time an American was extradicted for anything, let alone something like this?
That's right, never. On the other hand, when other countries do it to the US, they will whinge and throw their fists about like some cry baby, until they get their way!
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
So if US law can be applied world wide why not Islamic law? In the past I thought most US policy makers showed proper caution about allowing too much authority that could supercede national sovereignty. The principle is much more important than the specifics. So it is not bad enough that people who have government granted monopolies are given authority over what technology is allowed, now they are allowed to set precedents that could undermine national sovereignty? What a looming nightmare.
Re:Your Rights Online and Offline (Score:3, Insightful)
The only real exception is the EUROPEAN UNION, which has laws that govern parts or ALL 25 MEMBER STATES. The rest of the international laws can be erased with a pencil if anyone wants to.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:4, Insightful)
Can I just expand on that sentence of yours:
"In this case, the U.S. (a country of 200+ million people currently exerting its military dominance in 2 other countries) asked Australia (a country of 20 million people and comparably little world impact) to extradite him."
I appreciate your argument, but it's becoming less simple to turn down requests from the US.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this a new form of colonialism? Do we all 6.3 billion have to abide to the law of a mere 300 million?
Look before you leap ! (Score:2, Insightful)
I would expect some not so nice consequences in international relations
- having to send all Guantanamo staff and the US military commanders to Afghanistan, GB, Iran or Iraq for kidnapping, torture, illegal imprisonment etc. to stand trial according to local laws
- extradition request from china, russia, saudi arabia
You can't expect the world to respect YOUR laws, but constantly ignore THEIRS - can you ?
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
And how would an international court, made up of say, France, Libya, China, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Canada and Greece, be necessarily so much more impartial? I am certainly no Bushite, but even I, as a New Yorker who lived through 9/11, would find the idea of an international court to try bin Laden patently offensive. He committed a crime against me, in my territory and I deserve to have him tried in a court that follows my laws. The crime was committed here, and he should be tried here. Victims have rights too, you know, and that's why extradition treaties exist in the first place.
Trying him in the US would be like letting the victim of an alleged crime be the judge of the accused.
No, because he would not be tried for attacking the United States and he would not be judged by the American people - he would be tried for the murder of almost 3,000 people in the United States, and he would be judged by trained and experienced legal professionals just like every other case in this country.
Obviously, as in any other case, the judge would have to have had no personal involvement in the attacks. It's a judge's duty by law to be impartial; now, not all of them are, but I'd trust a US federal judge any day of the week over any international court, which these days would almost necessarily be comprised primarily of countries not friendly to us and in many cases openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hello NWO (Score:5, Insightful)
Well you've already judged him guilty so that's pretty much that.
And how many people judged Saddam Hussein guilty of having WMD?
Obviously, as in any other case, the judge would have to have had no personal involvement in the attacks. It's a judge's duty by law to be impartial
Yeah, I'm sure any given federal US judge is going to be impartial to Bin Laden. We would breed even more hatred if we attempted to try him in this country. It would be better if he was killed in a fight.
over any international court, which these days would almost necessarily be comprised primarily of countries not friendly to us and in many cases openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause.
None of the countries you named here:
France, Libya, China, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Canada and Greece
are openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause. The one suspect on the list for me would be Libya, but they have made substantial disavowals of terrorism with real deeds. Do you really think France, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Canada, and Greece are hostile to us? China, maybe.
Was there ever really any doubt? (Score:1, Insightful)
I mean, who wants to be a sovereign nation when you can be the Fifty-first state instead?
Re:Hello NWO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hello NWO (Score:2, Insightful)
First, look up "extradite".
Second: Although the recent french initiatives against merely advertising internationally something that would be illegal in France is more than a little suspect, if you actually do ship something to France, then yes you do have the obligation to check that you are not breaking french law by doing so. Just like the US can convict you for shipping heroin to the US from a hypothetical free-heroin country. Of course you have.
Now, if your country has no extradition treaty with France, you can of course choose to ignore any French sanctions against you. Provided you are happy to stay only in countries that have no extradition treaty with france and not hold any assets in France.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:2, Insightful)
"It's sad to see everyone jump on the bandwagon and dunp on the French, it just shows up the moronity of the typical ugly American."
Kettle, meet pot. Pot, meet kettle.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of us feel that Osama should be tried by an international tribunal, just like Milosevic, for his crimes against humanity.
I like his logic. Bits are information. Otherwise, you'd be able to try every writer who has ever written a book, just because someone read this book in a country which doesn't agree with its views. Think Salman Rushdie and 'Satanic Verses'. Should he have been extradited to Iran because of the fatwa and sentenced to death?
Extradition treaties 101 (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless I miss my guess, warezing (sp) is a crime in Australia as well, and this guy can be extradited.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)
Where's the oil in Bosnia?
Re:the joys of a wired world (Score:4, Insightful)
> the trigger in that country. This same thing can apply to the internet.
But then the question remains: WHERE is an internet crime committed?
a) in country where the content was created and/or hosted? (here: australia)
or
b) in the country where the content is received and viewed? (here: US, among others)
If you go with b), one could arbitrarily choose any country at wish. Clever
delinquents could even go one step further:
1) commit horrible internet crime
2) choose country with weak and light law
3) let someone from this country view content
4) get prosecuted for it in that country
5) dont get prosecuted in any other country (nor home country, nor US) anymore,
because one cant be prosecuted twice for the same crime
-> get away cheap with horrible internet crime
Re:Hello NWO (Score:2, Insightful)
So though I've never been to the US, because I send an email with a Metallica MP3 attached that passes through the US on its way to my friend in a third country, I've committed a crime in the US and I'll be sent to Guantanamo, or whatever kangaroo court the US decides? Will we ever see an American extradited to another country for a similar "crime"; say for relaying via an open server in China and faces 20 years in jail for hacking.
Re:Live free or go to jail (Score:1, Insightful)
PS When the US gets all uppity about copyright infringement, please contact the estate of Charles Dickens and his European peers. The US *ignored* copyrights and made a *mint* locally by reprinting the works as cheap throwaway paperbacks without paying him a dime.
Now the shoe is on the other foot, extradition time!
its all about the money... (Score:2, Insightful)
Thus, Australia, ever so ready to co-operate with said world superpower for strategic and financial incentives may extradite him for an 'appropriate trial' ie. another instance (RIAAesque) of big business run America making examples of pirates.
The thing that gets me is that this attempt at extradition is a direct comment on either inability to appropriately deal with this in our own legal system, or the fact that the US will benefit more from prosecution on their own shores, with their own media.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)
If those nations trade their national sovereignity for bribes by the US it's their loss. But I don't think that they are forced by the US with dark and ominous threats as the grand parent insinuated without having considerable advantages from this.
Re:...doesnt look good (Score:1, Insightful)
> was allegedly a member made use of machines at
> MIT. If true, although he didn't physically set
> foot in the US, he did indeed commit crimes in
> the US.
Absolutely. Let me put it in concrete personal terms. Suppose a slashdot member uses slashdot to break US law. Slashdot is on US soil. You're a slashdot member. Therefore, you should be extradited (if you're not already an american) and face trial.
The law is double plus good perfect as it is.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:2, Insightful)
The sensible solution is to allow the trial to occur in the place where the damage is done.
Re:The Empire is history (Score:2, Insightful)
As an American, I have to say I agree with your points. I think the situation is actually far worse:
I think the best thing for America would be to have the Empire fall - concentrate on what made our country great, not attempting to conquer the world. Our arrogance, hubris, is the key to our destruction. And I think it's coming much faster than most people realize.
What about war crimes? (Score:2, Insightful)
What about the idea that some European countries have about trying someone for crimes commited in another country? Seems like the same principle.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:3, Insightful)
This is especially bizarre if one considers the quarrels Germany and the US had about Iraq; on one hand people don't want the US to operate from German soil against Iraq or the like, on the other (what's been happening in the last couple of weeks since Mr. Rumsfeld made the big announcement about a major change in the US forces' structure in Europe) it is seen as punishment if the US want to close bases and people are upset. Seemingly having something to eat is more important than lofty ideals.
Indeed in my city (Ulm/Neu-Ulm in Southern Germany) large areas suddenly were deserted more or less over night when the US troops moved out at the beginning of the 90's, also the real estate market weakened considerably. Luckily as the city was not too bad off financially back then the city put the vacated bases and housing facilities to good use (which took a good part of the last 10 years to happen), but poorer communities or small towns somewhere in the countryside where the US base and their supplyers often are the only larger employer really got into trouble. Seems you can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Re:Hello NWO (Score:1, Insightful)
You're confusing the issue entirely. Australia sees copyright violations as real crimes so they are willing to extradite to the United States. We are not dealing with things like free speech or other acts that are crimes only in totalitarian dictatorships and France [say "Heil Hitler" in France and you'll be locked up]. This issue arises from someone who engaged in software piracy. That is a crime that is recognized by both Australia and the United States.
Bottom line, if it is a crime in your own country - don't commit it on the Internet because any crime your country recognizes, is a crime that you have a good chance of being extradited for.
I don't understand how a software pirate who is stealing from programmers is suddenly being talked about like he was some sort of freedom fighter.