Thread: UK Hacker loses extradition appeal, he was only looking for UFOs

^I tried, but computer said no.

Must have been the joint reds for Galt and Wilder on the other thread...

So if you commit a cyber crime from a ship at sea, you're home free?

Don't think so, Skippy. Probably link you to the ship's registry country.

One would think that maritime law is well established on this point.

What if you send an illegal e-mail while straddling an international border?

I just don't want the Americans to get me!

^ The merkins would be happy with half of you!

The problem is that the zeal the Merkins are displaying on this subject - that of claiming jurisdiction - is getting increasingly silly.

For example:

Why Did The US Gov't Take Down A British Travel Agent's Websites?

from the jurisdictional-questions dept

Over the years, we've seen a ton of jurisdictional questions raised by the internet. After all, since the internet is available just about anywhere, and content on it may break laws in some countries, but not others, how do you handle the jurisdiction question. Some courts have determined that it doesn't matter -- and they'll claim jurisdiction for whatever they want. Others suggest that evidence needs to be shown that the content is directed at and was seen by many people within the jurisdiction. Others have held that it needs to be created by a local resident or hosted on a local server. However, with all that said, it's not clear what jurisdiction the US government seems to be claiming over a bunch of websites created by a British travel agent. The websites all advertise trips to or information about Cuba. The websites were designed for European travelers to plan trips to the island nation. Now, it's well known that US citizens are not allowed to travel to Cuba, but that's not true of people from other countries. So, this guy clearly was not breaking any laws.

No matter, though. Since he had registered the domains for his various websites through eNom, an American company, the US Treasury Department had them pull down his sites and to refuse to release them to another registrar. There's no doubt that if the sites were targeting Americans or was run by an American travel agency, you could understand these actions. But to take down a UK-based website that was aimed at European travelers, offering them perfectly legitimate trips to Cuba, seems to go beyond any reasonable jurisdictional claim.

From:

Techdirt: Why Did The US Gov't Take Down A British Travel Agent's Websites?

Yes. These are bad times for the USA. We push people around. Why? Because we are Americans. I suppose you must blame your own government in the end (the case in the OP) as they relingqueshed control. But, I will concede your point about zealousness.

Register you websites with another country. This guy ain't too bright is he?

If I wanted to start a website that poked fun of Thailand's King, I sure as fuck wouldn't register the sites in LOS.

American's can't go to Cuba -- another fantastic myth perpetuated by the ignorant.

But you get his point, tex. We are reaching and on a silly point in terms of the cuba webste deal referred to above.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Now, it's well known that US citizens are not allowed to travel to Cuba, but that's not true of people from other countries.

This is a tecvhnical inacurracy. As tex impied, merkans can go to cuba but they cannot lawfully spend US dollars. Correct?

I don't necessarily agree with the Treasury's stance on Cuba, but FFS, the US isn't the only place in the world to register his website. He's a limey. What's wrong with his own godforsaken foggy island?

They are, where we are heading. They think the sun rises and sets on their ass. it did but not any more. we know it shines out our ass but it wont last forever.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Originally Posted by DrivingForce

Originally Posted by kingwilly

or if a US citizen insults the Head honcho of thailand online, should he/she be hauled to Thailand to face a possible 10 years in Jail?

FOUL!!!!!! not relative, we're not talking about free speech here. we're talking about a direct violation of someone else's property on the same level as a break in and potential theft of private property/information..

Thailand would not see it that way. They would equate the 'crime' of insulting the king with murder.

An example of this could be given over the Thai Government's reaction to the chap with the Thai flag in Manchester City's stadium last season...

Doesn't equate....Theft is theft the world over with varying degrees of penalty attached.. Speech is subjective..

It’s harder to stay out of the way of the US Justice system than you might think. Because of the nature of electronic mail servers, sending an email to your friend suggesting a quick pint will probably be routed through at least one US server. By arranging an after work drink you have inadvertently entered US jurisdiction and made that meeting a potential conspiracy organised on US soil.

An overzealous US prosecutor could take the email, along with a spurious allegation that you went to the pub to discuss terrorism, and get a grand jury indictment within hours. He could then request your extradition, and far from defending you against this idiotic and allegation, the British Government would arrest you and put you on the next plane to the USA.

You could produce mountains of evidence that the nearest you came to discussing terrorism was hoping that Tottenham thrash the Arsenal next week, but a British Judge would be powerless to do anything about it.

So, again Tex, to respond to your earlier point, I am scared.

Originally Posted by DrivingForce

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Originally Posted by DrivingForce

Originally Posted by kingwilly

or if a US citizen insults the Head honcho of thailand online, should he/she be hauled to Thailand to face a possible 10 years in Jail?

FOUL!!!!!! not relative, we're not talking about free speech here. we're talking about a direct violation of someone else's property on the same level as a break in and potential theft of private property/information..

Thailand would not see it that way. They would equate the 'crime' of insulting the king with murder.

An example of this could be given over the Thai Government's reaction to the chap with the Thai flag in Manchester City's stadium last season...

Doesn't equate....Theft is theft the world over with varying degrees of penalty attached.. Speech is subjective..

The man in the OP story was not being charged with theft...

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

I am scared.

Don't be. You can have ajarn alcoholics spot in the life raft.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Originally Posted by DrivingForce

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Originally Posted by DrivingForce

Originally Posted by kingwilly

or if a US citizen insults the Head honcho of thailand online, should he/she be hauled to Thailand to face a possible 10 years in Jail?

FOUL!!!!!! not relative, we're not talking about free speech here. we're talking about a direct violation of someone else's property on the same level as a break in and potential theft of private property/information..

Thailand would not see it that way. They would equate the 'crime' of insulting the king with murder.

An example of this could be given over the Thai Government's reaction to the chap with the Thai flag in Manchester City's stadium last season...

Doesn't equate....Theft is theft the world over with varying degrees of penalty attached.. Speech is subjective..

The man in the OP story was not being charged with theft...

As I said it is a form of theft and illegal invasion of private property, just as copy right theft is, or identity theft is, or online credit theft or fraud it's all in the same vein.

It's entering private property just as if I entered your home, just because you leave the door open doesn't mean I am allowed to enter your house, only in this case the perp happens to be able to do it from his bedroom in his poor little mums house.... It's still trespassing, locks are for honest people anyway... The crooks will always know how to get through them...the above are all analogies to try to help break down your understanding barrier though they do not necessarily speak to the exact wording of the OP...

I suggest building a bunker. Destroy anything electronic and don't go outside -- the satellites are watching. Grow mushrooms and siphon water off the nearby stream.

Before you get tangled up in the net, you might want to consider killing your family and friends too. Loose lips an all that...

^ Forget the stream. Its being watched. Drink your own piss.

Originally Posted by Texpat

I suggest building a bunker. Destroy anything electronic and don't go outside -- the satellites are watching. Grow mushrooms and siphon water off the nearby stream.

Before you get tangled up in the net, you might want to consider killing your family and friends too. Loose lips an all that...

You joke now. The US is leading the World down a dangerous path in this area.

Originally Posted by DrivingForce

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Originally Posted by DrivingForce

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

Originally Posted by DrivingForce

FOUL!!!!!! not relative, we're not talking about free speech here. we're talking about a direct violation of someone else's property on the same level as a break in and potential theft of private property/information..

Thailand would not see it that way. They would equate the 'crime' of insulting the king with murder.

An example of this could be given over the Thai Government's reaction to the chap with the Thai flag in Manchester City's stadium last season...

Doesn't equate....Theft is theft the world over with varying degrees of penalty attached.. Speech is subjective..

The man in the OP story was not being charged with theft...

As I said it is a form of theft and illegal invasion of private property, just as copy right theft is, or identity theft is, or online credit theft or fraud it's all in the same vein.

It's entering private property just as if I entered your home, just because you leave the door open doesn't mean I am allowed to enter your house, only in this case the perp happens to be able to do it from his bedroom in his poor little mums house.... It's still trespassing, locks are for honest people anyway... The crooks will always know how to get through them...the above are all analogies to try to help break down your understanding barrier though they do not necessarily speak to the exact wording of the OP...

FFS, Thais would regard insulting the king as a far more serious a 'crime' as trespass. It follows that greater weight would be given to pursuit of 'criminals' insulting the king than they would trespassers.

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

I wonder why he doesn't have a job and has to live with mum.

As mentioned in teh OP, this guy is a claimed Asperger Symdrome sufferer. AS is a milder form of autism and that can cause problems when trying to go through ordinary situations like job interview. AS sufferers normally come across as socailly inept people but more often than not are capable of excelling in any of their chosen fields. In this case, that would be breaking into to the probaly the worlds number one prestige target for the internet hacker.

good thing the civilized world doesn't subscribe to Thai law then and uses something more sensible in such matters..

I want to make one correction I should have used the term 'breaking and entering' in lieu of actual theft though that did occur apparently as well so he is exposed to both of those examples...

Originally Posted by Texpat

Register you websites with another country. This guy ain't too bright is he? If I wanted to start a website that poked fun of Thailand's King, I sure as fuck wouldn't register the sites in LOS.

that aint the point, thai law is illegal to insult the King, should the Thais be allowed to extradite you if you insult the King on the www ? I dont think they would say . woo, its registered in UK, this website must be ok then.