Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

British lad to be extradited to US for hacking, this is so wrong! Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joey11223)
    he's clearly vulnerable and there's no logical reason why he can't face time in a jail in this country, saves them the costs of housing him behind bars for a start.
    What do you mean no logical reason? Do you have even a basic understanding of the law involved?

    He cannot be tried in a British court, he can only be tried in an American court for this crime. To be tried in an American court he needs to be taken into custody so they can secure his attendance. If convicted, the US authorities may grant him a transfer to a British prison if the British government agrees.

    But that is not the matter before the Westminster Magistrate's Court today. The matter before the court is whether the extradition request under the treaty lawfully-contracted between two sovereign nation-states, the United States and the United Kingdom, has been validly made and whether the magistrate is obligated under the law to accede to the request/

    If the answer is yes, the Home Secretary will consider his case in light of the Human Rights Act (previously, the autistic hacker Gary McKinnon had his extradition request overruled by Theresa May as Home Secretary on the basis it would be contrary to his human rights). But I would be surprised if that happened here. Aspergers is not full-blown autism, such people do not necessarily lack understanding of morality and lawfulness and Lauri Love appears to be high-functioning.

    He chose to commit a crime. Somehow a lot of leftists and anarchist types seem to believe that he did the US government a favour and they are being spiteful, that this is about embarrassment. They don't realise that this childish view of the matter reflects more on their own worldview than it does on the facts. The US government is not a person, it doesn't feel embarrassment. The sort of people who usually feel embarrassed on the United States' behalf in international scandals, the President and Secretary of State, are probably barely aware of this case, which is hardly an unprecedented one. The fact is that the US Attorney has an obligation to prosecute alleged crimes where there is an evidentiary and legal basis to do so. They have an obligation to seek extradition to bring a person so charged before the American courts.

    I can see nothing improper here.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    Anyhow, if we don't extradite for capital offences because it's a human rights issue, why should we extradite this guy? He has severe mental health issues as well as Asperger's syndrome
    No he doesn't. He has minor mental health issues like anxiety. He was only diagnosed with very mild Asperger's as an adult.

    He will not survive the stress of being flown out to another country and subjected to the highly sub-standard mental health provisions of the US penal system, it's basically a death sentence and certainly a major breach of his human rights. We don't treat serial killers in this country as badly as some American prisons treat 1st time drug possession offenders with mental health problems.
    The United States isn't some third world country and I think a lot of people on here have a deluded view of the US prisons system that they've gained from watching a bit too much television.

    I'd also challenge the assertion that US mental health facilities for prisoners are substandard. I am not suggesting that they are extremely good - most prison healthcare in every country on earth could be better resourced - but he will have regular access and monitoring from mental health professionals if there are the problems that he apparently has. He'd also be placed on suicide watch if there was any concern of that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    The US Government is currently launching a war against against hacktivists. They are subjecting them to shockingly long death sentences and abuse. So many have commited sucicide because of they way they are treated. After Snowden the US want to send a message that hacktivists will not be tolerated at all.
    You are conflating totally distinct issues. Snowden wasn't a hacker, he had admin rights on the NSA's network, he simply control-c, control-v'ed the files he wanted into flash drives. There are complex arguments about whether Snowden is to be treated as a whistleblower, but the first principle here is that he is not a hacker but a government employee disclosing alleged wrongdoing.

    By contrast, a hacker who simply seeks to penetrate US government networks is doing so with no particular alleged wrongdoing they seek to expose, and no real justification for breaking into computer systems that are not their property. They hack these targets because they enjoy the thrill of it. For some reason or another, "hacktivists" and their online cheer squad seem to believe that because they themselves don't think of hacking as a serious matter, and because it occurs without any physical violence, or breaking and entering, that somehow it is no big deal. For people who claim to be technologically adept they have a remarkably old-fashioned social understanding of technology.

    If you hack into someone's computer then that is as intrusive as breaking into their house, in fact more so because by breaking into their computer you are really breaking into their mind if you can access their browser history, emails, synced photographs and social media accounts. If these hackers are as brilliant as they claim, and their motive is altruistic, then the NSA will happily hire them. The NSA has a voracious appetite for hiring hackers and any hacker of talent who has a truly altruistic motive can find a job in the intelligence community or corporate security sector.

    The reality is that this is not altruistic, they do it for the thrill, because they hope to find documents which they can use to embarrass or discredit the US government (as they are often fanatically anti-government and anti-American). They do it because any sensitive or compromising data they do find can either be sold or put online for the kudos they will get. Either way, their motives are not altruistic, they are committing a crime just as if they found a way to physically break in to CIA headquarters and steal a whole load of documents out of a safe. A person who did that would get 20 years, I don't see why a hacker who does this in full awareness of the seriousness of hacking offences and the possible penalties should be let off. The demands that they should be above the law are extremist and ideological, not serious.

    This war against hackers has to stop!
    So people who undertake a concerted and co-ordinated effort to break into US government networks are not doing anything wrong, and when the US government prosecutes them in accordance with the law (laws they were fully aware would apply to them), that is somehow a "war on hackers"?

    The rape sentence you cited was inadequate (if it actually happened), but that has no bearing on the sufficiency of these sentences. As technology becomes more and more ubiquitous in our lives, and more sensitive data is stored digitally, expect the penalties and the motivation with which the US government pursues these crimes to get stronger, not weaker.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Yes. Being the victim does not give you the right to decide the punishment.
    Extradition isn't "deciding the punishment", it's merely transferring the accused to the custody of the country in which the alleged crime was committed so he can stand trial.

    If an American criminal hacked in to MI5, MI6 and the MoD with the intention of obtaining classified British documents so they could be relased publicly to embarrass or compromise us, we would have every right to seek his extradition and try him in a British court, in the jurisdiction and under the laws he broke.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cain Tesfaye)
    its funny how brits know more about american institutions than british institutions

    also shout out to the "y'all"
    Not British so I literally know zilch about the UK
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Been watching Narcos?
    Yeahh haha
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexschmalex)
    Not British so I literally know zilch about the UK
    in that case i take it back and apologise for being presumptuous.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    If the USA tried a British citizen for treason and the UK government agreed to extradite him, I would instantly defect to North Korea. Frankly what they are doing is not much better.
    if they USA didn't get there way a sleeper agent would be used to drop the target
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I appreciate there's some subtly here when someone can be charged with an offence that they have committed remotely in a country they've never even visited. There's something vaguely silly about that, and when we're talking electronics it may not even be entirely clear in all circumstances in which country a crime is being committed.

    Doesn't really apply in this case, though, but a wider concern.
    You're touching on an important point of law here. It's a matter of (mostly) settled law that in cases involving international networks, the crime has occurred in the jurisdiction where the harm occurs.

    The hacker is in a way projecting a telepresence. You know those robotic surgical arms that allow a doctor a thousand miles away to exercise control over the robotic arms and conduct the surgery via a telepresence? If the doctor used the robot arms to slit a patient's throat and kill them (an example I saw in a law journal) the crime has been committed in the jurisdiction where the homicide has occurred.

    I think it's valid and logical reasoning that the crime occurs where the harm occurs as a jurisdiction must be able to determine and enact criminal offences with regard to property and individuals within the territory of the jurisdiction. Otherwise you would necessarily be getting into considerations of extraterritoriality and extradition mutuality that would be more complex and less clear than the current arrangement.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    What's wrong with this? The guy is an idiot (although I believe he's an autist), it's well known the US comes down hard on hackers.

    Play stupid games...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Extradition isn't "deciding the punishment", it's merely transferring the accused to the custody of the country in which the alleged crime was committed so he can stand trial.

    If an American criminal hacked in to MI5, MI6 and the MoD with the intention of obtaining classified British documents so they could be relased publicly to embarrass or compromise us, we would have every right to seek his extradition and try him in a British court, in the jurisdiction and under the laws he broke.
    the alleged crime was committed in this country.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    the alleged crime was committed in this country.
    No, it was not. It's a matter of settled law that where jurisdictional questions arise in relation to cybercrime, the crime is deemed to have occurred in the jurisdiction where the harm occurred. Mr Love effected a network penetration into American servers; he remotely caused US computers to follow his commands. In so doing, the crime itself (the penetration into the server) was occurring within US territory.

    The extradition treaty has a dual criminality provision which means that a citizen cannot be extradited from the UK to the US (or vice-versa) unless the crime in question is a crime in both jurisdictions. A British citizen cannot be extradited to the US for doing something that is not a crime here.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    No, it was not. It's a matter of settled law that where jurisdictional questions arise in relation to cybercrime, the crime is deemed to have occurred in the jurisdiction where the harm occurred. Mr Love effected a network penetration into American servers; he remotely caused US computers to follow his commands. In so doing, the crime itself (the penetration into the server) was occurring within US territory.
    What if an American company, say Amazon, has its servers in France and a Brit hacks into that? How is the location of the harm determined in this case?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    My main point is why are Our courts complying with the US and detaining this lad so he can be taken away from his own home country for upto 100 years in prison. The lad has mental health issues, how is he expected to cope in a US prison with all their gangs and violence?

    Countries like North Korea are always hacking into other countries national computer networks but their government doesn't hand the hackers to other countries. Why should we?
    Stop being ableist
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    Well we know for certain that the yanks would never permit us to extradite a criminal from them.
    What do you mean "We know for certain"? I'm sorry but your post is cringe-worthy in its ignorance. We know for certain they extradite an American citizen to face justice in British courts not only because it is provided for in the treaty (which, by the way, has existed in various forms since 1870), but because it has happened numerous times.

    And you must consider this is another American attempt to maintain their status as a super power by lording it over the rest of us.
    Utter crap. Under the current iteration of the treaty, the UK has denied 10 US requests to extradite a UK resident to the US to face trial. The US has denied no UK requests to extradite a US resident to face trial in the UK.

    Furthermore, due to the rigour with which we look into every extradition request, some requests have taken 13 years to work their way through the British court system. By contrast, no British request for the US to extradite someone to us has taken more then 3 months.

    Hundreds of Americans have broken into their own security system, but they don't need to be extradited and the Yanks have total power over there so they quietly remove them in the middle of the night.. if ye get what I mean
    You're saying the US government assassinates them? Do you have any evidence for this crazed theory? (I mean, other than paranoia and supposition)

    he jut exploited a well known entry point to the system, yes the yanks actually knew about the way he entered and still haven't secured it, sounds kinda stupid doesn't it?
    In other words, "I saw your front door lock was broken, and if you'd bothered to fix it then the door wouldn't have given way when I kicked it down. Therefore it's your own fault that I stole from you".

    As for the supposed unsecure entry point, has it ever occurred to you that the NSA has caused it to be left open to induce foreign cyber-units to attempt a penetration so they can observe what kind of payloads and tools they use, and maybe even send back a little trojan of their own?

    The sense of entitlement of hackers is beyond belief. If the computer is not your property, you have no right to break into it. If you nonetheless break into a computer network that is not your property, you are committing a serious crime. If you are caught then you will face substantial prison sentences. None of these people are truly ethical, white hats or are hacking out of altruism, they are hacking these systems for the thrill of it and often in the hope of finding classified data that can either be released publicly to damage the United States or in the hope of confirming some personally-held conspiracy theory.

    None of this justifies what they actually do, and the attempts to defend their conduct are becoming increasingly bizarre and outlandish
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cain Tesfaye)
    Agreed, should get a pardon if he agrees to work for MI5 for the rest of his life or something.
    Maybe not the rest of his life.But it would be so much better if he could employ those skills hacking the russian or chinese goverments for example.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobSausage)
    The thing I think is most disgusting is that the US want to sentence him for

    The thing that appals me is that the maximum penalty in the UK is 2 year 8 months for the sum of the crimes he has committed, yet he will be tried under another countries law. This is just completely unfair on him. And the fact that Americans are about as accepting of people with mental health issues as we were in the middle ages does not help the case one bit. If we lose him to the yanks I doubt he will last a year.
    Now people have been saying 'if he was a paedophile you wouldn't be against it' but that is completely different. It would be true if you say that the maximum time of imprisonment for a paedophile in the UK was 2 years whereas in the US it was life, but it's not.
    And the other problem is this is just another way of the US flexing their muscles and making an example out of an innocent guy, I mean yes what he did was wrong, but he didn't actually use this, he didn't extort it, he just entered their system, yes he got thousands of people's details but he didn't distribute them.
    And again on my point is it really fair to judge someone by a different law to the ones they have been abiding? It'd be like the British police trying to arrest a yank for arms dealing of pistols etc. but of course in that state because it's great 'Murica and it's a 'great' nation we would have no power to have one of their citizens tried for something that is legal in their country.
    With respect; you cannot claim that he is innocent. You don't know, and it's not your decision.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Canterbury bloke)
    With respect; you cannot claim that he is innocent. You don't know, and it's not your decision.
    I wonder, does he even deny he did the hack? That he is involved in the hacking community is not in dispute, and they apparently have verified chat logs of his username bragging about the hacks. If they can fix some IP and geo-data then he's probably screwed.

    I also thought the tone he struck outside the Westminster Magistrates didn't strike me as an innocent man. It struck me more as an entitled man who views not just these proceedings against him as an injustice, but the idea of any extradition on the basis of computer crimes. He also gives the impression he views this as some great moral crusade on his part (that video can be watched here; https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016...us-extradition). He also doesn't do himself any favours by being photographed in his bedroom with a Jolly Roger pirate's flag on the wall.

    As you rightly point out, his guilt or innocence is yet to be established; that it what the court is there to do. He will have a jury of twelve to adjudicate the matter, and if he has a half-decent lawyer he will benefit from a legal system that provides substantial protections to defendants.

    All in all, I can not see anything improper in these proceedings yet
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    That was exactly my point. If a British citizen could be tried for treason in the US then we'd be a de facto US protectorate, conquered by our own former colony. Anyhow, if we don't extradite for capital offences because it's a human rights issue, why should we extradite this guy? He has severe mental health issues as well as Asperger's syndrome, he's not just some random criminal. He will not survive the stress of being flown out to another country and subjected to the highly sub-standard mental health provisions of the US penal system, it's basically a death sentence and certainly a major breach of his human rights. We don't treat serial killers in this country as badly as some American prisons treat 1st time drug possession offenders with mental health problems.
    I'm on the fence as I agree the rule of law should apply and he face the consequences of his actions but believe that the potential sentence is OTT. I think they'll throw the book at him in light of recent the hacking scandals and the leaks of the past few years. I know of the lack of consideration for mental health issues in the US justice system(e.g. people with the mental age of a six year old on death row), but it's a case of whether or not he's playing on it to avoid extradition.

    Even after this decision there's still an appeal in Strasbourg and if unsuccessful the Home Secretary's discussion as to whether to actually carry out the extradition or not, so this saga will carry on for years before a final decision is reached. As said by other posters this is only deciding if he can be tried in the US or not, it isn't a conviction.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cain Tesfaye)
    What if an American company, say Amazon, has its servers in France and a Brit hacks into that? How is the location of the harm determined in this case?
    The harm occurred in France, therefore the crime occurred in France. The headquarters location or the jurisdiction of incorporation of the topco (the holding company that owns all the subsidiary companies) wouldn't bear on the case at all.

    If you smash up an Amazon van in London, the crime occurred in London, you will be prosecuted in English courts. The national origin of the company that owns the van wouldn't give rise to any jurisidictional issues (and in fact it's likely the van would be owned by an Amazon subsidiary incorporated in the UK anyway, just as those servers would probably be owned by an Amazon subsidiary incorporated in France, but in either case the ownership does not cause a jurisdictional problem)

    So, in your example, harm occurs in France therefore crime occurs in France therefore France seeks extradition of the hacker from the UK to France.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 20, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.