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

Originally Posted by kingwilly

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

As for trying people in their home country. NO. If the USA or any other country has computers that are vital to national defence (or even national defense) and Osama binLaden hacks them from a cave in Afghanistan

So if an American hacks a government computer in Syria, they should be deported to Syria to face the consequences?

Cannot see that happening.

What if an entire government agency does that sort of shit?

If people, or agencies, that are beyond the law, get away with it that still doesn't make it right.

uhuh, and if it should so occur should a US citizen be extradited to another (tinpot) country.

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?

^
Yup,

A) If the US had an extradition treaty with Syria then I owud expect it to be observed in both directions. it might sober a few people up if they knew hacking some Syrian's computer could get them shot. Of course, the UK will not extradite people if they face the death penalty so the maximum you could get for hacking Mustafah's Halal website is life imprisonment. Should clean the internet up quite nicely.

B) Again, if this were agreed between both countries to be an extraditable offence then, yes I would expect that. Of course, with the USA considering freedom of speech to be so important then such an offence would probably not be extraditable in which case an American would be free to say what he wants. If, however, both countries have decided a particular act is an offence in both countries then offenders should be extradited to the country where the damage has occurred.

OK, fair enough then.


I'm not certain that everyone would be as magnanimous as you.

And my opinion is that he should be tried in the country that he was physically in when he committed the crime. I guess we differ on this point. (which is fine)

BTW - just how many countries does the US have extradition treaties with, and just what do they cover?

Originally Posted by EmperorTud

Originally Posted by Thormaturge

Osama binLaden hacks them from a cave in Afghanistan and then uses the chaos he causes to murder innocent civilians in the USA I presume that is OK.

Osama being a former CIA asset may have had access to some of those sensitive websites anyway, and may still have.

Anyway, he's no longer in Afghanistan, the Americans let him and his Taliban cohorts go at Tora Bora.

pedantic Tud.. Torgues examples are relevant...

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

^No, I can't 'get it'.

I asked you for the similarities between him and Osama Bin Laden. You haven't mentioned any thus far, so can we assume that there isn't any?

yes he has your just being intentional thick..and thinking it's witty...








At least I hope that's all your doing?

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..

Originally Posted by DrivingForce

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

^No, I can't 'get it'.

I asked you for the similarities between him and Osama Bin Laden. You haven't mentioned any thus far, so can we assume that there isn't any?

yes he has

Er, where?

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...

I think you are over reacting a bit, bkkandrew -- At least in terms of the perception that the USA has any interest in this guy beyond bringing him to trial for what he appears to have admitted. Specifically hacking into numerous government computers.

BKKA over reacting?

Nooooooo~!

^^No, I just think that he should be charged, tried and (if convicted) punished in the UK where he is was when the alleged offence occurred. There is perfectly adequate legislation in the UK to do this, which I have quoted on this thread.

The fact that the UK will not do this is symptomatic of their craven, sycomphantic and weak Government.

In what country did the alleged harm/crime occur?

Your own government conceded the obvious in it's highest court.

The guy is no big spy. More of an idiot savant ir appears. But such matters are taken seriously and are, if he is found guilty, punishable in a range of ways.

If he (or those around him) would prerpare for the inevitable legal action in the USA, he would be much better served. And, imo, even if found guilty, he would be allowed to do the bulk of the consequence in his home country. All this posturing exagerating of peoples intent is illadvised.

^^No, it's about a cyber crime which could have been committed from anywhere -- a ship at sea or the space station.... The physical location of the suspect's computer isn't really a factor.

The crime was against a US government entity who caught him, shared the evidence with the suspect's government, who agreed to extradite him to the US to stand trial. If the suspect's government didn't think he would get a fair trial, they wouldn't have extradited him.

Imagine that ... your government might sell you down the river to the big, bad Americans if you fuck up. Pretty scary, isn't it?

^Incorrect Tex. Under the 2003 treaty, evidence is no longer required. The shameful arrangements (from a UK point of view) are well summed up by Statewatch:

On 31 March, David Blunkett, UK Home Secretary, signed an Extradition Treaty on behalf of the UK with his United States counterpart, Attorney General Tom Ashcroft, ostensibly bringing the US into line with procedures between European countries. The UK parliament was not consulted at all and the text was not public available until the end of May. The only justification given for the delay was "administrative reasons", though these did not hold-up scrutiny by the US senate, which began almost immediately.

The UK-US Treaty has three main effects:

- (1) it removes the requirement on the US to provide prima facie evidence when requesting the extradition of people from the UK but maintains the requirement on the UK to satisfy the "probable cause" requirement in the US when seeking the extradition of US nationals;

- (2) it removes or restricts key protections currently open to suspects and defendants;

- (3) it implements the EU-US Treaty on extradition, signed in Washington on 25 June 2003, but far exceeds the provisions in this agreement.

An analysis of the new UK-US Treaty - which will replace the 1972 UK-US Treaty - follows below, together with a number of relevant cases and issues that raise serious concern about the new agreement (and those between the EU and US).

Ben Hayes of Statewatch comments:

"Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required.

No other EU countries would accept this US demand, either politically or constitutionally. Yet the UK government not only acquiesced, but did so taking advantage of arcane legislative powers to see the treaty signed and implemented without any parliamentary debate or scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Texpat

Imagine that ... your government might sell you down the river to the big, bad Americans if you fuck up. Pretty scary, isn't it?

If you replace the term 'if you fuck up' with 'want to fuck you up', I agree, it is vey scary indeed.

Originally Posted by bkkandrew

"Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required.

This would bother me as well. Foolish to sign such an inequitable agreement.

None the less. Your countryman will be treated reasonably and fairly, imo.

^You are starting to see why, when you look into this matter, there is more to this than meets they eye!

The problem is, when you add to the treaty issue the fact that the prosecution are on record that they want to see the defendent "fry", then I do share your confidence on his likely treatment.

Tough talk by prosecutors is common in the USA. It is intended to intimidate.
He needs counsel who can assist him. In the end, hie fears about the process will prove more disturbing than the actual consequence (should he found guilty). But to expect folks to cut him slack at this point in terms of a plea and trial, especially given your governments lack of vertebrae, is quite unlikely.

[quote=Texpat;740179]^^No, it's about a cyber crime which could have been committed from anywhere -- a ship at sea or the space station.... The physical location of the suspect's computer isn't really a factor.
__________________________________________________ ________________

There is a very large case in the United Kingdom that went in favor of the plaintiff, in that it did matter and was the primary point of contention......the defendant did process the information from his own computer and it was a domain registered to him.

This argument...'It came from somwewhere out there....I tell You"! ...just isn't washing anymore.

^Let me the first to congratulate you on actually taking an interest in and posting on a thread other than your wholly introverted Galt v Wade charade.

Greens for Khun Wilder!