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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    His fault for getting caught. There's thousands of people who have hacked into USA's """secure""" systems. They're smart enough to not get caught though. He knew what he was getting into.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Britain needs to stop licking their backsides and OUR courts should d eal with it since it happened here.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    And why exactly would it be so impossible for us to deal with this ourselves? there is absolutely no need for him to be extradited at all - what a complete waste of time and I'm not surprised about his fear, the justice system in the US is going to be way more unfair on him than it is over here.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    No he doesn't. He has minor mental health issues like anxiety. He was only diagnosed with very mild Asperger's as an adult.
    When you are diagnosed doesn't mean anything, it's just a symptom of the failure of the healthcare system to diagnose mental disorders properly. And he has major mental health issues, including depression and psychosis, and is a suicide risk.

    Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ed-states-nasa

    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 don't think my impression of the US penal system is deluded. What makes you such an expert on it?

    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.
    I see your challenge and raise a counterchallenge. The USA prison system is not the same as the British one, not least because the US is massive country governed under a federal system. Some of its prisons and services are very good. Some of them are just as bad as many third world countries. Suicide watch in the USA can sometimes consist of being tied to a table wrapped in a glorified straitjacket called a suicide smock, either in isolation, or sometimes in a room with a load of other people tied to tables and screaming. Literally barely updated from the 19th century (they are tied with fabric rather than chains I suppose).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This is a bit of whataboutery; but the guy who was locked up for helping to rig Libor was diagnosed with Aspergers and there was no public outcry implying that he wasn't responsible for his actions, as I've said earlier I think the sentence will be too harsh but he isn't automatically immune from facing the consequences of what he's done.
    Offline

    16
    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,
    A British citizen by definition could not be tried for treason against the United States of America because they owe no allegiance to the United States. A treason offence can only arise as a result of a breach of loyalty; the American law that codifies treason, Title 18 US Code, Chapter 115, provides the explicit limitation in the first sentence of the offence by saying, "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war..." etc etc.

    Anyhow, if we don't extradite for capital offences because it's a human rights issue, why should we extradite this guy?
    We do extradite for capital offences as long as we get a guarantee that the death penalty will not be sought, an assurance that is always given.

    He has severe mental health issues as well as Asperger's syndrome, he's not just some random criminal
    I'm not sure what makes someone a "random criminal". If you were familiar with the court system you'd know probably the majority of those before the courts have mental health problems of one kind or another. I'm unaware that anyone has asserted that he was incapable of understanding that his act was unlawful, or that he didn't know what he was doing. From his press conference outside the Westminster Magistrates he seems reasonably high-functioning. I cannot see what reason you are positing for why he should be immune from the law.

    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 total speculation that he "would not survive the stress". He has obviously been advised by his lawyer that the Gary McKinnon precedent is the only hope for avoiding extradition, and thus he has to play up the depression/suicide angle. These issues would have been examined by the magistrate; expert medical reports would have been sought from both sides, the magistrate clearly did not accept the assertions Lauri Love was making.

    By the way, he would be imprisoned in the US federal prison system, which actually has quite well-resourced medical prisons for those with chronic health issues that mean they cannot be in the general prison population.

    it's basically a death sentence
    That is total speculation, you are not providing any actual evidence in the way of medical reports. You are simply repeating verbatim what Mr Love has claimed (and what is in Mr Love's interests to say)
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    And why exactly would it be so impossible for us to deal with this ourselves? there is absolutely no need for him to be extradited at all - what a complete waste of time and I'm not surprised about his fear, the justice system in the US is going to be way more unfair on him than it is over here.
    Because the crime is classed as happening in the jurisdiction of the United States of America not here, so what you actually propose is just start ignoring international agreements just because someone might be sentenced for a crime they have knowingly committed.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    When you are diagnosed doesn't mean anything, it's just a symptom of the failure of the healthcare system to diagnose mental disorders properly.
    Expert medical reports from top psychiatric consultants would have been commissioned by both prosecution and defence for these extradition hearings. The judge was able to assess both and did not agree with what you are claiming. Also, how on earth do you know what his issues are? You're not a doctor, let alone his treating physician.

    And he has major mental health issues, including depression and psychosis, and is a suicide risk
    Depression is not necessarily major, it depends entirely on the degree. He is clearly not psychotic from the video on the courthouse steps. The suicide risk is merely asserted, not proven.

    I see your challenge and raise a counterchallenge. The USA prison system is not the same as the British one, not least because the US is massive country governed under a federal system. Some of its prisons and services are very good
    Obviously you don't understand the US constitution and penal system. Many state prisons are substandard. But Love would be in the federal prison system, which has a single standard across the board, and excellent medical prisons for prisoners who for reasons of chronic ill-health or mental illness cannot be in general population.

    He would probably be in a facility like this one

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...ter,_Rochester

    Health Services staff at FMC include physicians, a dentist, dental assistants, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, a radiological technician, physical therapists, laboratory technologists and a respiratory therapist. Mental Health Services through the Psychiatry and Psychology Departments are available to all inmates. These include educational groups, therapy groups, individual therapy, intensive diagnosis/assessment, and inpatient treatment. In addition, outpatient substance abuse treatment services are available.

    In 2009 Philip Fornaci, the director of the DC Prisoners' Project, stated that Rochester, along with FMC Butner and FMC Carswell, "are clearly the "gold standard" in terms of what BOP facilities can achieve in providing medical care" and that they had provided "excellent medical care, sometimes for extremely complex medical needs.
    I simply do not accept your characterisation (based on misunderstandings) of the US penal system, nor do I accept that if Mr Love is guilty that a facility like FMC Rochester would not be a suitable and safe place for him to serve out his sentence.

    L i b JamesN88
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    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.
    Is your position based on the territorial principle; the effects principle; or the protective principle (or a combination, or none of the above)?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    He looks okay to me here, in this picture of him outside the Westminster Magistrates. Hardly the picture of a man who is so depressed that he will kill himself, and so psychotic that he is incapable of understanding the proceedings of which he is the subject

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/84720...sm=12&fit=max&

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cain Tesfaye)
    Is your position based on the territorial principle; the effects principle; or the protective principle (or a combination, or none of the above)?
    It operates in two ways. First, as a matter of conflict of laws and jurisdictional theory, it arises from the territorial principle and effects principle; that within its own territory a state's jurisdiction is absolute and unfettered, and the right to regulate conduct that causes effects in the forum jurisdiction. As a matter of criminal law, offences around (by analogy) criminal damage arise from a jurisdiction over the property. The property in question here is a server located within US territory, to which it has an unfettered right to regulate or enact criminal offences related to it, both as a territorial consideration and as an effects consideration.

    Second, it arises from a common law formulation that "a person may be charged in the place where the evil results", even if he set in train the events elsewhere. The seminal case is United States v Ivanov which dealt with this exact question, it's worth a read (Ivanov was decided on a, paraphrasing, 'causes detriment in the forum'. As a matter of US law, it is very clear that Love's crime can be validly said to occur in the United States
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    A British citizen by definition could not be tried for treason against the United States of America because they owe no allegiance to the United States. A treason offence can only arise as a result of a breach of loyalty; the American law that codifies treason, Title 18 US Code, Chapter 115, provides the explicit limitation in the first sentence of the offence by saying, "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war..." etc etc.
    I think you quoted the wrong post. That is what I was trying to explain to the guy who said he should be tried for treason.

    I'm not sure what makes someone a "random criminal". If you were familiar with the court system you'd know probably the majority of those before the courts have mental health problems of one kind or another.
    I am relatively familiar with criminological matters. Most defendants who have 'mental health problems' have problems such as substance dependency and depression which are brought on largely by their life circumstances, by which I mean although they are perfectly real mental problems, they fit a certain profile, a profile which is the polar opposite of a reclusive hacker with Aspergers and depressive psychosis.

    I'm unaware that anyone has asserted that he was incapable of understanding that his act was unlawful, or that he didn't know what he was doing. From his press conference outside the Westminster Magistrates he seems reasonably high-functioning. I cannot see what reason you are positing for why he should be immune from the law.
    Firstly, 'I saw a video interview and he seems rather high functioning' is on many different levels a ridiculous comment to make. Not least because he's a skilled computer hacker, so he's not exactly going to be non-verbal, but being articulate and being able to understand the consequences of your actions are totally separate things.

    It's total speculation that he "would not survive the stress". He has obviously been advised by his lawyer that the Gary McKinnon precedent is the only hope for avoiding extradition, and thus he has to play up the depression/suicide angle. These issues would have been examined by the magistrate; expert medical reports would have been sought from both sides, the magistrate clearly did not accept the assertions Lauri Love was making.
    Nobody can predict the future. I guess time will tell.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    It operates in two ways. First, as a matter of conflict of laws and jurisdictional theory, it arises from the territorial principle and effects principle; that within its own territory a state's jurisdiction is absolute and unfettered, and the right to regulate conduct that causes effects in the forum jurisdiction. As a matter of criminal law, offences around (by analogy) criminal damage arise from a jurisdiction over the property. The property in question here is a server located within US territory, to which it has an unfettered right to regulate or enact criminal offences related to it, both as a territorial consideration and as an effects consideration.
    Does the U.S. have prescriptive jurisdiction in this case, though - is 'cyberspace' part of a state's "territorial jurisdiction" (The Lotus Case; R v Bates)?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Expert medical reports from top psychiatric consultants would have been commissioned by both prosecution and defence for these extradition hearings. The judge was able to assess both and did not agree with what you are claiming. Also, how on earth do you know what his issues are? You're not a doctor, let alone his treating physician.
    How do you know I'm not a doctor? You don't need to be a doctor to see that until recently, diagnosis of disorders like Aspergers was incredibly patchy. I know a couple of people who were only diagnosed as adults despite very very evident symptoms from a young age, purely due to the incompetence of their childhood schools and doctors, and you don't have to look very hard to find evidence that this is not just anecdotal on my part.

    And besides, it was L i b who started trying to internet diagnose him, I was just giving a source which refuted what he made up off the top of his head. Obviously a newspaper quoting a lawyer's defence speech is not exactly a reliable clinical psychiatric assessment but it's better than making things up.

    Depression is not necessarily major, it depends entirely on the degree. He is clearly not psychotic from the video on the courthouse steps.
    I see, so I can't know what his issues are, but you can diagnose someone with psychosis from seeing a 2 minute video? How long did it take you, to become a renowned expert in jurisprudence and also 'One gander Zander', the world-renowned psychiatrist who can diagnose a complex medical condition from less than 2 minutes exposure to a prepared speech? I'm amazed you find time to post on internet forums.

    The suicide risk is merely asserted, not proven.
    And when he's pictured being carried out of his cell in a body bag, will you accept that as proof, or would you like me to PM you his death certificate too? How exactly does one go about proving a risk, anyway, without actually trying it out, at which point it presumably ceases to become a 'risk' and becomes 'reality'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cain Tesfaye)
    Does the U.S. have prescriptive jurisdiction in this case, though - is 'cyberspace' part of a state's "territorial jurisdiction" (The Lotus Case; R v Bates)?
    You seem to have gone off on a strange tangent. The US has prescriptive jurisdiction everything within its own territory. The server that was interfered with is within United States territory, over which the US Congress has unfettered (except by its own constitution) jurisdiction.

    The fact that cyberspace was the technical means by which this crime was mediated doesn't have any bearing on the US Congress' authority to enact laws prohibiting interference with computers located in the United States.

    In any case, the US courts have interpreted Title 18 USC 1030 has having extraterritorial effect so the effects / detriment doctrine in United States v Steinberg is unnecessary to establish the validity of this prosecution, as a matter of US law. Again, this is settled law.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    by which I mean although they are perfectly real mental problems, they fit a certain profile, a profile which is the polar opposite of a reclusive hacker with Aspergers and depressive psychosis.
    And the fact he doesn't fit the common profile for, say, property offences signifies what? I'd say it's not an outrageous assumption that he might be fairly consistent with the profile of people prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act.

    Perhaps you could elaborate what these personal characteristics mean? Should he be exempted from the criminal law? There are many people who are not the typical criminal, who might not be expected to thrive in prison, who are nonetheless sent to prison. Being a geek, or being middle-class, or being a bit timid, isn't a 'get out of jail' free card. And given that US Federal Medical Centres (where inmates with long-term medical issues that render them unsuitable for genpop are held) are well-resourced (in fact they were described as the "gold standard" by a US prisoner advocate NGO) and highly-experienced in holding inmates with such issues, I don't see any reason why his condition makes him fundamentally unsuitable for a term of imprisonment. US Federal Medical Centres don't sound like the gang-infested, shank-happy hell-hole many on here assume he would be in.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federa...ter,_Rochester

    so he's not exactly going to be non-verbal, but being articulate and being able to understand the consequences of your actions are totally separate things.
    I'm not aware that anyone, even Love himself, has claimed he didn't understand the consequences of his actions. Not believing that you will get caught is not the same thing as not understanding the consequences of his actions. He was in all likelihood fully aware that hacking is a crime, he was likely aware it carries a term of imprisonment for those convicted. Furthermore, it is extremely clear from his interview on the courthouse steps that he is aware of his surroundings, that he understands that he is the subject of court proceedings and that he understands the consequences of those court proceedings (when he starts talking about the High Court and appeals, all this is fairly undeniable, as are his references to the mood and mental state of the gallery of supporters...a very un-Autistic observation). For the purpose of the criminal law, his awareness of the fact of these proceedings and the consequences is sufficient for them to continue. It is for a US court to determine any defence of no guilty by reason of mental impairment.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cain Tesfaye)
    Does the U.S. have prescriptive jurisdiction in this case, though - is 'cyberspace' part of a state's "territorial jurisdiction" (The Lotus Case; R v Bates)?
    Anyway I'm off to bed now. If you have further responses I will respond to them tomorrow.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Copperknickers)
    When you are diagnosed doesn't mean anything, it's just a symptom of the failure of the healthcare system to diagnose mental disorders properly. And he has major mental health issues, including depression and psychosis, and is a suicide risk.
    Autism spectrum disorders are not mental disorders, and of course the date of diagnosis is relevant. If you can go through fairly extensive contact with healthcare professionals without being diagnosed for something, it suggests the symptoms are pretty minor. This was confirmed by the psychiatric experts in the case, who concluded "He does not have AS in combination with learning difficulties, attention deficit and language. He is high functioning".

    As for psychosis, the only experts who touched on that concluded he may be at risk of it. Not that he had suffered from it. He did have clinical depression, of course, which of course affects a huge proportion of the population at some time in their lives.

    I don't think my impression of the US penal system is deluded. What makes you such an expert on it?
    You're the one who's saying there's reason to doubt the Courts' findings after consultation with experts on mental health in the US prison system that any treatment he needed would be adequately provided.

    I see your challenge and raise a counterchallenge. The USA prison system is not the same as the British one, not least because the US is massive country governed under a federal system. Some of its prisons and services are very good. Some of them are just as bad as many third world countries. Suicide watch in the USA can sometimes consist of being tied to a table wrapped in a glorified straitjacket called a suicide smock, either in isolation, or sometimes in a room with a load of other people tied to tables and screaming. Literally barely updated from the 19th century (they are tied with fabric rather than chains I suppose).
    Yes, and again the Courts have considered what facility he would most likely be placed in and concluded that he would be segregated and kept under 24 hour watch. No tying to tables or dressing in anything.

    I'm not sure why you'd compare a suicide smock to a straitjacket. For one, it's completely sleeveless, which is rather the defining part of a straitjacket. It is, in fact, just a quilted gown that cannot be fashioned into a noose.

    On occasions, mental health patients are restrained. It's unfortunate, but in the most extreme circumstances it is essential. Physical restraint of prisoners is a last resort, both in this country and the US.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    He's not young. He's in his thirties.

    We have an extradition treaty with the US and since they are the victim of this crime, they have every right to try him in their own soil. The fact that he has Aspergers doesn't really matter since he is still capable of making his own decisions and he chose to do something bad. It's not he has Down's syndrome or something.
    Agree on the extradition thing.

    It's debatable whether the Asperger's obscured his judgement. I think it depends on a case by case basis. But his depression is definitely something that should be taken into account because he was not of sound mind and his judgement was obscured, and should get a reduced sentence for that.

    I feel a great deal of sympathy for him because of the extremely long sentences in America for this sort of thing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    And the fact he doesn't fit the common profile for, say, property offences signifies what? I'd say it's not an outrageous assumption that he might be fairly consistent with the profile of people prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act.

    Perhaps you could elaborate what these personal characteristics mean? Should he be exempted from the criminal law? There are many people who are not the typical criminal, who might not be expected to thrive in prison, who are nonetheless sent to prison. Being a geek, or being middle-class, or being a bit timid, isn't a 'get out of jail' free card.
    You are arguing against a straw man. I never said he shouldn't go to jail. He isn't an ordinary criminal because, apart from his profile, he is up for extradition to another country, a country to which he has never even been as far as we know, on the basis of a non-conventional crime, a cyber-crime which was committed on British soil. Not to mention the diplomatic sensitivity of the crime: he embarassed the US's intelligence services and everyone and their dog can see that they are trying to depict him as some kind of supervillain to cover their own incompetence. Many people per year hack American websites from outside America, how many of them are extradited to the US? If he goes there, he will be the centre of a ridiculously over the top show trial resulting in a horrendously inflated sentence: he will be to all intents and purposes a political prisoner, since nothing the US has so far done has demonstrated that they intend to treat him as a normal computer hacker.

    Frankly I don't think computer hacking is worthy of a jail sentence at all, it doesn't harm anyone and jails are full to bursting point. He doesn't pose any kind of a threat to the population at large, he has probably already been given enough of a scare to never do it again, in fact he's started a cybersecurity business so he's actually helping people now. Any more than a 1 year sentence would be purely to set an example, and for that reason he should be allowed to stay here to have a proper trial which will sentence him for the crime of data theft, not for the crime of making NASA and the CIA look like idiots.
 
 
 
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.