Slashdot Mirror
World's First Warez Extradition Decided Soon
An anonymous reader writes "An Australian Court will soon determine whether US Law should reign supreme in copyright infringement cases that occur online. According to this article, a decision will be made in two weeks as to whether Hew Raymond Griffiths, also known as "Bandido", will be extradited from Australia to the US for running the warez group DOD. Slashdot has in the past interviewed one of Bandido's co-conspirators in the US, who was sentenced to hard time - but the question is, if Griffiths committed no crime in his home country, should the US be allowed to hijack .au laws? "
I can't really say I care for the precedent being set here.
How are you supposed to get anything done on the internet if you have to worry about not only the laws in your country, but those all over the world?
(Realistically, the laws in your country plus those in the US)
Twenties Retirement
Does anyone know if Australia does in fact extradite paople to the US? Oh, well. They're all descended from prisoners anyway
"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."
I don't think it's up for any debate as to whether he committed no crime in his home country, as he has committed crimes in MANY countries simply by distributing warezes to whoever anywhere. It just that the US is the one where he is currently to been processed.
If he isn't extrudited to the USA then he' able to be charged in Australia anyway, to me, or the UK or spain or france or germany as nauseum
adult desktops & wallpapers
I thought we were supposed to send criminals *to* Australia?
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
I thought that the usual rule was that you could not be extradited for an act that was not classified as a crime in your country of residence. This causes the IRS grief when someone moves to a country where tax evasion is not a crime.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Seems the AU government is going to great effort to ensure that the US/AU Free Trade Agreement gives Australia as little independance as possible from it's new monarch - the US.
Seems we wont be able to buy DVDs from the US soon to because of all this.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
If I arrange an assassin to murder a US citizen, have I broken my home country's law? Probably not. Have I broken US criminal (not civil) law? Yes.
Morally, should I be extradited to face trial for my deliberate actions against the murdered US citizen?
Oh course, the law should be all different for when you're stealing software, shouldn't it? Bah. I'm a developer. I try to use Free Software exclusively. If I use non-free software, I pay for it. So should you.
Does my bum look big in this?
I believe that fear of US sanctions have worked well to bring some countries to crack down.
But sometimes this is not enough. It is not a case of hijacking Australian law.
I am usually don't condone the strong arm techniques of the US government. And I do support open source. But Warez is a crime. And it should be punished.
Cross jurisdiction policing is the only way to fight spammers. It is the only way to stop intellectual property theft. But more importantly it is the only way to fight terrorism.
(I do understand that terrorism means different things to different people. But whatever the reasons terrorist have for doing what they do, KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS is immoral. Full stop.)
Nothing to see here
If a co-conspirator is a member of a conspiracy, what's a conspirator? (Hint: Don't use "co-conspirator". It only dilutes the word and makes you look like a moron!
I hate that word, (ir)regardless.
No one cares. Really.
The accused computer whiz wore his hair almost to his shoulders until he was served with legal papers and required to attend court, when he had a haircut.
What is the question here?
If you commit a crime in a foreign country which is also considered a crime in your home country you should be extradited. No question.
If you commit a criminal act in a foreign country which is legal in your home country, you probably shouldn't be extradited. At least not in this case, where the guy hasn't even set foot in the USA while perpetrating the alleged crime.
But: Software piracy is not legal in Australia.
So the question is: Does the US court have jurisdiction of these crimes, if they did occur in Australia?
That's a question which the US court will no doubt adress in the trial.
But if they don't, then it means that he should be tried in Australia..
So what's the issue?
On second thought, I changed my mind. This would be a great precedent.
If it works, let's pass a law making spamming illegal, with harsh penalties, and then demand that everyone extradite thier spammers.
Twenties Retirement
While his actions were performed in Australia, many of his victims (the owners of said IP) reside in the United States. Without getting into an IP law debate, It's not that much of a stretch to prosecute someone under the laws of the country of the victim.
An analogue would be attempting to extradite a 419 scammer from Nigeria because they defrauded a North American.
Any person in this country, who is indicted for an offense in another country, is in danger of extradition, where an agreement exists to extradite. There is nothing wrong with sending accused (indicted) to the country where the crime is alledged to have occured. Wouldn't you want the opportunity to recover persons who are alledged to have committed crimes in your country and left for another country. Or should we all rob a bank and make for Mexico?
Groups like PWA, RiSC, and DoD were Gods back in the day, and they still may be, but I left that scene long ago.
Back in 1997-98 I was a courier and used RiSC's bFTP daemon, which was Linux native (I still even have the source to it). Back then I would transfer 20+ gigs a week over my school's network before I finally got busted.
I got a slap on the wrist by my school, which cut off my network access for the rest of the semester. It's scary seeing people serving time in prison and getting huge fines.
I guess I'm glad I left the scene after all.
Since the competition is being wiped out, I think I'll start my own warez group ;) It's like with drugs you arrest one boss another gang takes over in no time. ;)
It all should be resolved in a different manner, instead of criminalising more and more actions, more things should be allowed. Think about it, nowadays nearly everyone is a criminal, either he shared some files, or unknowingly infringed some patents.
Like someone said: "According to our research P2P sharers are 500% more prone to commit another crime. In most cases it's file sharing"
The only reasonable solution is to allow it and to have it under some control, if for instance drugs were legal, there would be no mafia whatsoever. I don't know about long term effect of totally free software, but I suppose people would donate or sth like this, in worst case some software would not be developed and so what?
Sharia Law is the law of Mohammed and Allah. It is a code of conduct for being a good Muslim. A Muslim who commits adultary "can" be put to death.
The major "crime" of an adult website operator going to KSA is likely to be is of them not being Muslim. Something which might be punishable by disdain, shoddy treatment etc, but unlikely to be flogging. Is Danni Ashe a Muslim?
Generally non-Muslims do not get flogged in Riyadh, they simply get permanently expelled from the country.
However, if any Muslim adult website operators were sent, then there could be trouble.
Of course they shouldn't, but they will anyway. Australia is pretty good at bending over for the United States, and sending one man to PITA prison is a sacrifice Australian politicians will happily make to stay in favour for the next round of trade talks.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
It doesn't make sense to extradite someone to another country for some act that isn't a crime in his home country.
Otherwise, Western women could be extradited to Saudi Arabia for not wearing a burka.
Of course, if they catch you *in* Saudi Arabia not wearing a burka, that's another story.
For extradition and the prospect of hard prison time in a foreign country?
Was a person raped or murdered?
No companies made a few percent less PAPER PROFIT, I say PAPER PROFIT because the people that would use these cracks would never have purchased the software anyway.
Maybe his lawyers should argue the case on the grounds that he wouldn't recieve a fair trial and that the USA penal system has been shown to abuse world standards on human rights.
Well, good thing the US can't extradite me to thier totalitarian state, I'm already...
DAMN!
Seriously, this scares the hell out of me. I think it might be time to look at some of those non-extradition countries.
Doesn't matter what you think. AU is one of a few countries that have agreements and treaties with the US which mutally allow the country to obtain criminals that seek refuge in a country. If the AU ever wants to be able to do that on their own with the US, they must comply. Besides, this guy isn't exactly innocent of crimes. You are not helping yourself by supporting a criminal.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
*IF* this does take place, then its all over for national sovereignty, and the WTO has won.
Expect all laws to be taken to the lowest common denominator and if you do anything that violates another countries laws ( when you couldn't get it passed in your own ) expect to be jailed. Making most everyone a criminal, with their rights stripped from them at will by their respective governments.
This also has ramifications for free speech, as many things you can say in one country is outlawed in another..
This is bad.. really bad..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
He was stealing more than intelectual property. First off, they steal your time trying to trick you into porn sites - earning "click money" themselves - it's not about sharing, it's about luring people and earning money! Their sites are ridden with misleading links and finding contents is extraordinarily hard. Then they steal bandwidth. They don't host on their own sites. They either use free hosting services (what forced using the anti-bot protection from scripted account generation there), they use private people's PCs too. I personally found some warez on my very own FTP in Incoming directory, just because I forgot to set it write-only. And to that, they put people on legal risk - how would Iprove it wasn't me who hosted that warez? That's them who make the net harder to use.
He doesn't have to have commited crimes in Australia. If the US consider him to have, and assuming they've followed the procedures by making him a suspect internationally, by passing his name on to Interpol, the Aussies have to pick him up.
And then it's up to the Australian judicial authority (judge/panel/court I don't know) to extradite, or not, based on what the extradition request and the arrest warrant ask for.
At least, that's how things should be working in theory.
/. Where the truth
Are you a lawyer? Giving legal advice?
except its now the Jews locking up and torturing people not Nazi's
enjoy your fascist regime, it couldnt happen right ? its America
Treaties are the ultimate law they even trump the constituions of other nations. If the Auzzies did not want their people to be taken from their little island they should not have signed on the dotted line.
Here. It's fairly simple stuff. Short answer: yes, USia can ask AUian courts to extradite.
As it wasn't linked in the story, here is the link to the Slashdot interview:
Slashdot interview: Chris Tresco from DrinkOrDie
You see, everyone, what the right wing firebrands have to resort to? They don't have a calm, rational argument to make, so they resort to namecalling and hate speech. Harldy makes my job difficult. I just make an observation and let the right-wingers bury themselves under a pile of invectives.
I refer to the presidential administration as the "Bush Admin," hardly inflammatory, and this guy refers to me as "Fucktard." That's really persuasive. Wow, what a compelling argument. Your point is the more valid one because I'm a "fucktard."
As far as the proof you ask for, the post I'm replying to is proof enough. The US is trying to get someone sent over here to face charges related to internet crimes, so I don't see why it's so far fetched that they'd send someone abroad for the same reason. It certainly would put the fear of God into every American adult site operator, and it would win massive kudos from the AFA and Christian Coalition. Of course, making Christian websites available would also be a crime in the MIddle East, but there'd be an exception made in the law for that.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Can't they just call him a terrorist and pull a Saddam Hussein on him? That'll get his ass out of there.
Watch out with all of this talk about free speech and democratic ideals, or China might demand your extradition for violating the "Republic's" laws about dissent.
most people I know that get the warez version of software usualy get it to try it out, then buy the real thing, if the software industry didn't suck so bad you wouldn't have to, think back to Dakitana, hyped by everyone to be this great game, GameSpy GameSpot etc.. 10 stars and crap, then you go spend $50 on it, and in 10 minutes you want to go back and punch the pimply dork that let you walk out of the software store with that crap in the face! On another note, I can't stand how our (US) laws havent gotten so abused and misused. what happened to the land of the free? I rember hearing a story about some British Tea getting thrown off into the water becuase AMERICANS were tierd of paying TAXES on it. But now the US taxes the tea, gas, hell now were gonna send a tax to AU. might as well, they seem to be kissing G.W.'s butt pretty good these days.
This really depends on whether you live in a country which is a client state of the American Empire or not. Doesn't it.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
We haven't yet abolished elections so that isn't ever happening. Even the US President always has his party clenching his stones wanting to be (re)elected in the next election (state, congress or other).
Whatever damage done to our society by this man's crime would have been no worse had his IP popped up on our soil in xtraceroute. If we have the clout to persuade a country to turn over anyone whose crime is of this techno-era location-ambiguous nature, and if we want to reserve the right to do the same to child pornographers and destructive hackers, we should exercise that clout now.
I know this is difficult, but pretend this isn't Slashdot where software must be free and open source and piracy is k-rad -- pretend this guy was cybersexing your prepubescent sister, and upon her viewing a goatse picture that he emailed her after a conversation in which he described his fantasies of using her face as a target for various liquids, she developed Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and was scarred for life. Would you want the prosecutor to throw in the towel because the guy was on the Principality of Sealand at the time? Of course not, right?
So shouldn't we keep that door open even if it means one of Us is gonna do some time for contributing some elite .torrents to suprnova.org? Because you can't really have one without the other.
If this were about more than continuing the flow of bribes and graft, they'd be extraditing spammers from Brazil, China, and Korea.
That said the issues are subtley but still substantially different. Libel is a civil issue, facilitation of piracy is criminal. International treaties handle these cases differently (and quite often not at all), it would have not been possible to sue that jornelist if his paper had no dealings in Australia as if I remember correctly Australian defamation laws are not recognised by America because of the differnces in laws and to a lesser extend the differences in culture. Only the Australian arm of that company could be sued.
But even if the crime was ruled to have been commited in America, as is possible extradition may not be possible. This is because nomatter where a crime was commited, if a sovereign nation does not recognise those crimes or recognises them to a lesser extent (as is the case here) then deportation may be conditional or even impossible.
Personally I don't see a deportation happening, the backlash that would occur when an Australian is sent to a foreign land that he has never set foot on before, to stand before a foreign jury to answer to foreign crimes for an action that was alledged to occur in the man's own home, in his own country would be sickening to most Australians or anyone with a sence of national identity, even if they are not Australian. There is a strong undercurrent of hostility towards the US flowing around Australia's youth and left wing. No judge would be willing to make this man a martr to Australian nationalism. Australia is one of the only countrys never to have had any wars or bloody revolutions, nobody would risk making this sacrifice to appease a foreign power if it meant a remote possibilty that thousends of angry young people with a newfound nationalistic furver could be storming the high court, parlement house, the US embassy and pine gap.
One also has to consider that a legal system that would entitle a foreign power to snatch away citizens for breaking laws of another nation into a distant land where they have never been is harldy soverign. Even if he is not crushed by homocidal revolutionarys, any judge that allows this extradition will surely be relinquising his own power to those overseas. This is completely contrary to human nature, let alone the nature of one ambitious enough to become a high court justice.
But let me say this. If this extradition is allowed, whosoever allows this man has commited nothing wrong in his own country to be taken to a foreign land as a prisoner, shall have fire and chaos thown down on him or her by either their power being snatched away by the American judituary or their life being snatched away by hostile revolutionarys. If they act in the wrong way, their own actions shall not go unlamented.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Interesting how we see strong-arm tactics against some aussie warez-puppy, but we don't see them waltzing into Moscow to shut down the mass-piracy of the Russian mafia groups, or the cd-r markets throughout Asia.
I guess this is to be expected from a government that will storm into a crippled-to-the-level-of-impotence Iraq to stop them from developing, err, "weapons of mass destruction", but will just cautiously sidestep any country of real WMD threat (China, NK, Israel).
Seems to be another case of break the weakling orpahan to keep the rest in line.
Once the US sucks someone thru the internet into our court systems what is there to stop another country from sucking an american thru the internet to their country ? Like Germany or France charging & then extraditing someone for owning or selling Nazi memorabilia ?
Countrys have borders for a reason.
normally, he absolutely should not be extradited to another country for crimes he clearly committed here (in australia).
however, if this is correct:
The US moved for the extradition after the US Department of Justice became dissatisfied with Australia's inability to charge Griffiths.
then i guess that explains why they are trying to extradite him in the first place.
however, in my opinion, it would set a dangerous precedent. if he's committed no crime under australian law and the act deemed a crime by the US was in fact committed in australia, then he should not be extradited.
It doesn't mean we've learnt anything about it. Our current stance on refugees is so cruel and wrong it's depressing. It amounts to: don't come here, if you try to come here we'll ship you off to Nauru or lock up in "detention centres" with worse conditions than many jails. It applies to anyone (including young children) who tries to come to Australia as a refugee outside the 'correct channels'. (As though all refugees can afford to wait for the right paperwork to come through before fleeing for their lives.)
Human rights in Australia have been getting worse and worse. It's all very embarrassing. It won't suprise me if something extremely dodgy happens to this guy in an effort to appease some US officials.
The article states that the Australian authorities are unable to charge him, indicating that he has done nothing illegal in his country of residence and the country where the act was carried out (Australian server, .au domain).
Many Americans have "broken Norwegian law", by allowing Norwegians to download hardcore porn from American servers. Should they all be extradited?
Your country and laws are not above anybody elses. The fact that some of you clearly think so sickens and frightens me.
If we are to go by the logic put forth by some of you, we should all be extradited to China (if not North Korea)... Sure you want that?
I really doubt he needs anymore.
The USA is the richest power. It does not need to buy favours from other countries by selling its citizens.
Americans are very lucky. This is one reason why the USA is unpopular abroad.
**rant mode**
This reeks of politics a mile off. Under the current (proposed) free-trade agreement btw AUS and US, DMCA-style copyright laws will be extended to australia. This case seems like a very similar extending of US laws to cover australia and it willingly acceded by australian politicians for the all-hallowed free trade status. Just disgusting (can we have david hicks and Mamdouh Habib back please?).
All of these issues are tied in together and commonly seen as the extension of US laws and culture into australia. I for one am NOT happy with my new US overlords and I shall be writing to my MP about it!
One very annoyed aussie...
**end rant**
Okay, so this is a jurisdictions thing. Gotta love these. The internet makes it all that much more fun. Can he really be extradited purely because the internet was involved, and therefopre the effect of the crime was felt in every country? If so, it's a very dangerous precedent. I gather he's been found Not guilty in Australia, so this will make it a retrial. But if this is about copyright infringement, then surely companies with a prescence in Britain, New Zealand, France, Germany, Japan, South African, Malaysia, China, and Saudi Arabia will also be affected. So even if he is cleared by the US court, can all of those countries also charge him with copyright infringement? Can he be tried repeatedly, until they either run out of countries, or one of them finds him guilty?
This could mean that the guy could spend the rest of his life defending himself against exactly the same charge, in any country that has a similar extradition treaty with Australia. There's a good reason that people should only be tried once.
Extradition treaties are mutual agreements which extend the law of one country into the territory of another country by that countries consent. If Australian officials find cause to believe that Griffith used Australia as a safe haven to wantonly commit crimes in another country - even if they aren't considered crimes in Australia - they can then make the decision to extradite him. However, there is nothing to compel Australia to extradite this guy. The decision is completely arbitrary. Incidentally, the poster is wrong. Griffith did commit a crime in Australia if the allegations are true. His lawyers arguments are that because the transactions took place in America, but that Griffith was never physically in American territory, that he has not in fact "committed" a crime. It's a lawyers typical circular logic. The fact of the matter is Australia is beholden to the same International anti-piracy law as any other country who is a signatory to it. Simply because Australia doesn't have the evidence to bring him to trial.
All of this could have been avoided if this guy put his efforts toward free software.
It's not a crime in Australia and he did not use servers on American soil. If the U.S. Govt. wants to get people for distributing warez, they should work with other countries on forming laws to combat this, not trampling the ones already in place.
That man made copyright-restricted software illigally available FROM Australia ON the internet, so the act was performed in Australia, not in the U.S.
This is simply because the crime(?) was performed in Australia, and not in the U.S. So it's Australian jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
This is both blatant flamebait and offtopic. Come on moderators...
Another article is located here, with a little more information about the crimes allegedly committed. Apparently, he believes that he committed no crime in Australia because the physical location of his dropbox and software were all at MIT.
The ______ Agenda
I thought so.
I am the ONLY person I know who owns a legitimate copy of PS. I know a LOT of people.
I don't care about "Right and Wrong" semantics. Fact is, the web would have a lot fewer graphics today without warez pirates. I even bet some of the graphics on Slashdot were originally made on illegal copies of PS. Tell me I'm wrong.
-FL
We haven't yet abolished elections so that isn't ever happening.
Neither has Russia. At least Russia has a lower limit on the turnout.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I suppose they're just doing the usual thing of trying to move the trial to some other state of the US where the prosecutors think they'd have a better chance, I mean the courts of NSW might actually rule against them :).
How exactly is it flamebait to suggest that if Americans can extradite people from Australia for breaking US laws, that governments of countries where porn is illegal might want to extradite people who run porn sites? Or that the future Islamic People's Republic of Iraq might extradite you for putting up a picture of your girlfriend in a bikini?
If we start down the slope, where will it stop?
I wish there was a mod for arrogant, illiterate fool.
Co-conspirator is perfectly appropriate:
A conspirator is someone who engages in a conspiracy.
A co-conspirator to the first conspirator is someone who engages in THE SAME CONSPIRACY AS THE FIRST.
F#@!ing wannabe.
The major "crime" of an adult website operator going to KSA is likely to be is of them not being Muslim. Something which might be punishable by disdain, shoddy treatment etc, but unlikely to be flogging. Is Danni Ashe a Muslim?
This isn't a case of someone going to the Kingdom of their own free will, so much as someone being brought there against their will.
Generally non-Muslims do not get flogged in Riyadh, they simply get permanently expelled from the country.
If they didn't want to be there in the first place wouldn't the just ask the Saudi Immigration authorities to deport them...
What did he expect? They were going to send roses? Poke the bear, and the bear doesn't like you...
Before even reading a word of the article, I will resolutely declare NO!
This is becoming markedly similar to creating a one-gov't world. I'm sure that GWB would like this ... but no one else.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
We haven't yet abolished elections so that isn't ever happening.
The US hasn't abolished elections yet. Most likely that will never happen, just bring more and more machines to make it impossible to verify that the "results" have any connection to the votes cast. There are plenty of dictatorships which hold regular elections...
...it's the old "what if I stood on one side of the border, and shot someone on the other side" argument. If he was exclusively working inside Australia, uploading to noone but Australians it'd be a non-issue, no matter if the IP holders lived in the US. Say you were counterfeiting Scotch whiskey in the US. The crime would be in the US, no matter how Scottish the victims would be or not, it'd never end up in a Scottish court.
Once you start uploading to other nations, it gets kinda mirky. The best comparison would probably be with smuggling. Am I sending the goods, are they "arriving" here to pick them up, am I shipping them out? Or in other words, am I a) dealing the goods in my own country (which might possibly be legal, but still contraband abroad), b) in full awareness taking part in a smuggling operation, but just supplying or c) delivering the goods abroad?
Nitpicking like if you were doing DCC sends or running an ftp server might actually matter on that one. Or where the bits are actually copied, and thus the copyright broken, which would arguably always be where the sender's at. Or what side is breaking export laws or import laws.
Finally, there's the issue of transit countries - who picks the smuggling route? What if I don't? Let's say I post a package of contraband with the postal service in country A, destined for country B, and they decide to route it through country C for some logistics pupose? Am I then liable if the goods are illegal in country C? Does it matter if I could have checked or known (traceroute)?
I've yet to see any clear precedent on much of this - it's very difficult to say from a layman's position what exactly would be illegal and where...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Most extradition treaties deal with criminal offenses.
Other than the weird laws of the US (sorry, but thats my opinion), since when has "copyright infringement" been considered a criminal offense?
I guess we can expect the RIAA to extradite for downloading next?
Even more offtopic. Come on moderators, mod this shit down. Good lord.
doesn't that open him up to potentially be tried and convicted multiple times for the same crime? If he makes one song from the Warner label available and Warner US has him extradited for copyright charges, then should Warner Canada, Warner Germany, etc. get to prosecute him? Odds are that the one song violated copyrights in multiple jurisdictions, but he really still committed one single illegal act (in my example). I'm not even sure that if I commit murder while abroad that I can be sentenced by both my home country and the country I visit... if this is in fact a potential precedent being set then the ramifications are immense, even IF all countries agreed to extradite upon request...
When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
How can he, as an Australian citizen, be extradited from Australia to the US?
Are you that big of an idiot?
Read up on the latest happenings in SCO-land, they are 100% screwed in multiple ways. One of the best is the 1985 addendum that jsut came into the light.
As for NGSCB, I do not see that as a big threat yet. It will be dealt with when it shows it's ugly face. Think of it this way, companies such as Apple with alternative OS's to Windows will have to figure out a way to make the NGSCB work, or else they will be out of a job. I'm sure the geniuses in Linux Kernel-land will get it to work.
I think the subject, says it all!
BUBBA, can you say CORNHOLIO? BUBBA likes people like you in jail, mmmmm fresh meat.
I know the article was trolling, but I'm biting at the bait.
If the Internet was set up so that if you, living in Australia, pushed the right combinations of keys, an innocent person in the US strapped into an electric chair would get killed.
If you pushed the button and killed the person, could you be charged with murder in the US? Could you be charged with murder in Australia?
I think most people would say yes to at least one of these questions.
Now, if the killer were in Australia, and the killed were in Canada, could you be charged with murder in the US? I don't think so, although you could say the act occurred in the US (by virtue of the datagrams whirring through US-located networks en route to Canada. Regardless, I would give Canada and Australia first crack at that case.
My father is a blogger.
Besides, this guy isn't exactly innocent of crimes.
Wow. So the "j" in "jmccay" stands for "judge" and "jury"?
As long as he has a US statement to the effect that the UN Declaration of Human Rights will prevail over all domestic laws then I shouldn't imagine too many problems. If not then I don't see why someone whould risk their life, liberty and wellbeing in the US legal system.
Ask yourself - would you want and open ended journey through, say the Saudi courts, with appeal after appeal in a legal language you don't understand, represented by people you don't know and endevouring to understand the never ending interpretations of eseoteric legal theory while you are languishing in some prison ?. After all , unlikely that you would be out on bail given you would be a foreign national.
I imagine not.
I can understand it if he'd committed a crime in the US on US territory but no crime was committed where he lives. Extradition can only take place if the crime committed is also a crime in the destination country.
This is what stops foreign countries trying to extradite US citizens for what may be considered rights or freedoms protected by the constitution to countries that don't respect the same rights.
The reverse applies too. It'll set a dangerous precedent for US citizens.
I've always wondered what the head of a huge whar-ez group looks like.
pimply faced punk? geek? criminal mafia d00d?
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Griffiths committed no crime in his home country
Interesting how we see strong-arm tactics against some aussie warez-puppy, but we don't see them waltzing into Moscow to shut down the mass-piracy of the Russian mafia groups, or the cd-r markets throughout Asia.
It fits with the idea of "bullies tend to be cowards"...
I guess this is to be expected from a government that will storm into a crippled-to-the-level-of-impotence Iraq to stop them from developing, err, "weapons of mass destruction", but will just cautiously sidestep any country of real WMD threat (China, NK, Israel).
Ditto, except for Israel where there is something far more complex (and apparently a lot darker) going on. To the extent that most of the US Government looks to be putting the interests of a foreign country before their own.
People need to stop being clouded by the veil of the internet. Distributing pirated materials to a computer located in the United States, run by a person located in the United States is no different than say, flying to the United States, dealing cocaine to Americans, then proceeding to fly home. Would you oppose extradition in that case? Along the same lines is the notion people have that hacking is okay, while breaking into someones office uninvited to "test their security" is not.
Do NONE of the companies that he allegedly pirated from have offices in Australia? No official presence at all? If they do, why are they not simply suing him in Australian civil courts?
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Fuck Uncle Sam.
For someone to be extradited, there has to be a treaty between the two countries that allows for extradition. Read the fine print of the treaty, that is what it is there for!
For example, in my country (Canada), a mobster is successfully fighting his extradition to the US for his role in a conspiracy to murder in the 1980s. If he was charged in the US with murder, it would be an open & shut case - he'd be extradited. But the rules are different for lesser charges, and he probably won't be extradited, even though the US evidence against him is pretty strong.
I remember that word being used for people accused of political murder where all they did was have dinner with a conspirator.
Luckily the co-conspirators were cleared of any wrong doing by the courts.
I couldn't agree more, the issue here is as much a matter of equality as anything else. In my book, this guys crimes, while wrong, are minor. The rough equivalent of petty theft from Best Buy. But since it involves small losses to large corporation, we are going to invest what is probably hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars, to bring this guy over. When a company commits what is the equivalent of petty theft and doesn't deliver on their promises to their customers, it is written off as a "business oversight" and folks like me always end up getting the shaft.
Plain and simple, this is a ridiculous waste of the tax dollars we invest in our law enforcement and court systems.
And in anycase in both cases international agreements generally work both ways.
Certainly extradition is reciprocal.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Not exactly. Vinegar hill was not particularly bloody, or very long. I think the Aboriginals would have a thing or two to say about bloody wars as well. I think this quote from Cam on Kuro5hin sums it up nicely. Especially the second to last sentence.
I hope that you are correct in that Australians won't stand for this extradition. The above quote supports your argument. However, I am not optomistic. I believe Australia's involment in Iraq has a lot to do with the trade negotiations. If the Australian government is willing to pay for a trade agreement with blood, what is one more?
obtain criminals that seek refuge in a country
(A) He's not a criminal and
(B) he's not "seeking refuge". He's remaining at home where he's been the whole time.
The US is getting uppity at Autralia because Australia is not prosecuting him. And the REASON Autralia is not prosecuting him is because HE DID NOT BREAK THE LAW.
The US wants to extradite him so they can persecute him for "breaking codes", NOT for copyright infringment. "Breaking codes" is nothing but working out mathematics. And guess what? It's not a crime to do math in Australia! He's not a criminal.
It's my dip-shit home country of America that came up with the numbskull idea of criminalizing math.
P.S.
The Chinese people should have a revolution and overthrow their government. OOPS! I JUST VIOLATED CHINESE LAW! I guess I'm a criminal too! Quick, someone extradite me to China!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Contrary to what the Slashdot story says, the article DOES NOT say he committed no Australian crime. The article states that his defense attorney CLAIMS he committed no crime.
That is a defense attorney's job, isn't it? And its hardly a fair assessment of the law. His only basis for saying he committed no crime is that the servers he used were in the U.S. (MIT).
The point is there is a reciprocal extradition treaty between the U.S. and Australia (See Australian Extradition Act of 1988).
Despite the "overlord" assertions on many posts this is a simple matter of law and will be determined by an Australian Court in their own sovereign nation. This isn't like the U.S. showed up in NSW and forcibly kidnapped him.
Israel is a nice strategic place for USA. Nice and close to the USSR of old. Now that the cold war is over, Israel is still close enough to the middle-east to still matter. ;-)
BTW, GWB seems to have missed all the WMD under his own pillow. The USA has enough power to decimate many countries. Therefore they need to be invaded and stopped. That's what I think.
I meant "USA should be liberated", not invaded. Yesssss, that's what we meantssst.... my preciousssssss. ;-)
You're welcome. Any other questions?
If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
What does this say to the citizens of a country when your government will deliver you into the hands of a foreign power when you've not broken the laws of your own nation?
The civil war in Columbia started as a question of National Sovereignty over the extradition (to the United States) of a cocaine producer, which was not against the law in Columbia at the time. This extradition led to the increasing popularity of the FARC, and their accompyaning (Stalinist) socialist platform, increased cocain production and exportation (to the United States) in order to finance both right wing and left wing paramilitaries, and increased hardships for the poorest of Columbias people, who were already suffering due to ecconomic hardships and a lack of basic civil rights for the majority of Columbias people.
Actions such as these cause increased mistrust of a nations government, lend credence to dangerous or misguided political movements, (rightfully) increases anti-American sentiment, leads to internal social conflict, and increase crime in the nation that would extradite for an offense that is not illegal in that country.
Given that Australia is not a third-world country, is not a narcotics exporting country, and has a stable and (I assume) fair form of government, it is unlikely that the repecussions will be as unsettling or as harmful as has occurred in Columbia.
Still, demanding extradition for an offense that is not illegal in the offenders country, and was not committed in the requesters country, does not serve a nations national interest, as it will weaken it's ability to (ethically and effectively) influence the other nations policies, creates mistrust among the citizens and governments of other nations, and makes traveling abroad more dangerous for the nations citizens due to misguided attacts against it's citizens.
I a company is doing business in a foreign land, then they must be willing to deal with the law (or lack of law) and culture as it exists there. If the company wishes to have that law changed, they should follow the tradition and procedure of that countrynot lobby their own government to have its law enforced on foreign soil.
If this man has broken Australian law, he should be prosecuted under Australian law, or if it is a civil offense there, the harmed American parties should sue in Australian courts.
The US pressing for extradition in this case may seem like a "win" to the companies who produced the software, but for everyone else, and for US relations with Australia, this could be a big loss in the long run.
Read, L
Absoulutely not, not under any circumstances.
Of course, the US has a camp full of people in custody who commited no crimes on US territory, and the US invaded and occupied two entire countries in response to crimes not commited by the residents of those countries, so apparently the US law enforcement has a slightly different view on the matter.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Your confuse grammatical with Word's; me think.
You're being a Grammar Nazi- for which I still hate you, but cannot shun you...
No Words for you!
It appears that they are doing this because they think the Austrialian Gov will roll over and just give the guy up. The Us gov would have to put a lot more pressue on the Russian of Chineese Govs before they will even start craking down of the piracy in those countries, and I doubt the US justice dept. has enough clout to even ask for a an extradition from those countries.
Ahh yes, the wonderful world of international affairs.
but the question is, if Griffiths committed no crime in his home country, should the US be allowed to hijack .au laws?
Why not? Surely the extradition of Oz citizens is covered by treaties between the US and Australia. These treaties were signed by freely elected representatives of both countries. If the provisions of such treaties obligate Australia to extradite a person who commited a certain type of crime in the US, rule of law would make it logical that he be extradited.
There is the possibility of this case creating an undesirable precedent. However, in the US courts two conditions must be met for a court to intervene. One the court must have subject matter jurisdiction, which, very simply, means that an act must have been committed that falls within subject matter the particular court can review. For example, you can't generally sue someone for trespass in bankruptcy court. Second, the court must have jurisdiction over the person. This "personal jurisdiction" can often be a murky area. In my opinion, simply connecting via the internet to sites, or computers in the US should not provide the basis for personal jurisdiction. However, this may not be the basis being relied upon in this matter. I haven't kept up much with developing precedent, but perhaps the Australian gentleman connected himself to the US by other means, say using the postal system, entering into separate agreements, etc. Unfortunately, many of these so-called "long arm" personal jurisdiction precedents are created in loathsome circumstance like child pornography or the sort. These loathsome cases then provide a small opening for the self righteous to exploit.
The crime did involve physical units in the United States, and as such the US can claim at least some form of jurisdiction. But extradition treaties generally spell out the crimes that someone can be extradited for, and warezing from a hacked server probably isn't one of them (yet).
If you broke into Russian servers, should you face punishment in Russia?
The ______ Agenda
"weapons of mass destruction"
;-)
More like "weapons of mass duplication".
NO!!!! it is NOT legal to smoke pot in canada, but since you have been smoking so much you have obviously missed the (not so) recent news. It was de facto decriminalized starting early last summer, when the supereme court said the laws RE weed were bad (to put it simply), leaving it to the feds to redo them. The feds did. It was recriminalized last fall. Jean Chretien tried to pass legislation in the winter to LEGITAMITELY decriminalize, but didn't get it to the table before he retired, and I think that now, Prime Minister Paul Martin has more important things to worry about.
....taxation without represntation? anyone? well, maybe replace taxation with imprisonment..
Karma: Bad. Mostly because the only moderators that notice me are conservatives.
Really, what's the chance of Britain or Australia telling the US to shove off when it wants something?
May we never see th
is the fact since he was running a warez group, he prolly had a lot of software covered by US patents and trade laws, which would make him candidate for extradition, IIRC.
The question is: are the Australians inert enough to ship some poor bugger off to a kangaroo court in the US? I think that if there is a problem, the international corporations should required prosecute him in Australia. From a less corrupt US perspective, I have several problems: (1)expost facto laws with extraordinary scope and duration - "IP" laws metastatic spread over several centuries of evolved copyright and patent law. (2) as for a extradition, even some of the US supreme justices continue to assert constitional supremecy, (3) the *people* are the ultimate law, not some corrupt treaty, not a even a dishonored constitution - The Australians should seriously consider where they are if their government allows this travesty. If the bugger distributed warez he should be prosecuted in Australia for copyright infringement under Australian law, and he should avoid US waters and airspace permanently OR apply for immigration - he'll NEVER get here; Even here in the US, our founding fathers directly addressed this kind of "cracking" question in the Declaration if Independence: (1) For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences (2) He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. (3) He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. (4) For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: (5) For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury. Sieg Heil, Eisner! Sieg Heil Vivendi!
If it's illegal under US law for me to kill Americans and illegal under Canadian law for me to kill Canadians, should I be allowed to stand in the US and shoot people indiscriminantly in Canada? I'm not breaking a US law, and I'm not in Canada breaking Canadian law.
:-)
Where was the crime committed? In the US where I reside, or in Canada where the harm was done? On the internet, the harm is typically done outside the border where the person is. Now, in the case of warez, there are three parties, and one victim. The UL and DL are parties to this, and the company whose stuff is being warez is the victim. If either the UL or DL is in the US, then the US should be all over them. If the UL is outside the US but the software owner is in the US, then they US should be able to extradite since the victim is in the US. If the DL is outside the US, then the US doesn't touch no matter what. Simple...
Australians can work the warez scene all they want, so long as UL is in Australia only hosting Australian software. That's consistent with most laws.
China could kick our ass so we will leave them alone. They will eventually become members of the world army since they obviously have the biggest population. Then again, US Service men and women already are forced to say they will fight for the UN and not the US. It's a messed up world we live in.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
US copyright law has had provisions for criminal infringement for some time now -- at least as far back as 1976, which is longer than many people reading this have been alive.
You can find plenty of details on cases of criminal copyright infringement by Googling on that phrase.
The bigger question is "why do so many Slashdotters think there's no such thing as criminal copyright infringement?". It seems to be one of the more pervasive memes around here. Surprising, since, as I mentioned, a simple Google search would clear it up without a doubt.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Most of the "Prisioners" as you call them, were tax evaders. People who could not grow enough crop for their landowner. "Real" criminals were executed.
Sorry, as a historian, I have to step in here.
The above his historically innacurate. While there were many capital crimes in the 18th and early 19th centuries, a whole host of others carried the sentence of transportation or, after 1857, penal servitude 'beyond the seas'.
A common example of an offence punished by transportation was theft under one shilling.
For Americans: you might be interested to know that, prior to the American Revolution, many convicts were 'transported' to serve out their sentences in Virginia. So parts of the United States also have a facinating convict history.
If you were inside US Customs at an Australian Airport, or stole his luggage from the US Embassy in Sydney, you were in fact on US Soil, and thus committed a crime in the US.
For Americans: you might be interested to know that, prior to the American Revolution, many convicts were 'transported' to serve out their sentences in Virginia.
Georgia (the U.S. state, not the country and former Soviet republic) was a penal colony at one point, but I've never heard that Virginia was.
Britain began sending transportees to Australia in part because the American Revolution meant that Britain no longer had colonies in America to send them to.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
The problem isn't that the Administration isn't respecting international law; in fact, there is no problem at all. The reason why the U.S. Government has historically been so averse to foreign trials for U.S. citizens is because of the United States Constitution.
The Constitution is not the creation of our government. The Constitution creates our government. As a consequence of this, the government cannot enact any law or enter into any treaty which goes against the Constitution. How can it? The government, being inferior to the Constitution, has zero authority to violate the Constitution.
So now take a look at the United States Constitituion and its several guarantees to criminal defendants. American defendants have the most and the best safeguards of any nation in the world. The various proposals for International Courts of Justice lack these safeguards. For instance, the last I saw, the proposal for the International Criminal Court did not guarantee the defendant the right to a jury trial, nor did it guarantee that no indictment would issue except upon presentment of a grand jury.
If ICC doesn't guarantee the right to a jury trial or the right to a grand jury, then the U.S. Government cannot become party to it. Why? Because that'd be Congress saying "well, in some cases, yes, we agree that American citizens can be denied the right to a jury trial and the right to a grand jury..."
And the Constitution--which establishes our government--announces to the world, clear and cold, this is not allowed.
I don't fault you for saying "It doesn't look like precedent to me, it looks more like the US is doing it because they can". It does look that way to Europeans, whose governments can typically do anything they want subject to the will of the voters. The American government is sharply limited in contrast with European ones. We see this time and time again, where some European power asks Bush to spare the life of one of their nationals who's been convicted and sentenced to die. Bush then has to say "err, he was convicted and sentenced to die in California. I have no authority to pardon criminals convicted in state courts. I can call up Governor Schwarzenegger if you really want, but I don't think he'll pay me much attention. In fact, he'll probably hold a press conference to say he hung up on me, which is a, exactly what Ronald Reagan would've done if Nixon had called then-Governor Reagan up begging for a pardon for someone, and b, given how popular I am in California, it'd guarantee him re-election..."
Most Americans don't really understand the Constitutional issues behind the ICC, nor the Federal/State dichotomy in government. I hardly expect the rest of the world to understand it any better.
Congratulations, you're gullible.
Here in New Zealand, we've ratified the Kyoto Protocol...
So, according to this logic, I can't wait until NZ starts applying for the extradition of the CEOs of all those US corporates pumping out greenhouse gasses.
That damn ozone hole seems to get bigger, year after year. While that may not bother those of you that live in the Northern Hemisphere, I'm getting a little sick of wearing factor 5k sunscreen here!
"..and argued he had committed no crime in Australia."
So breaking into someone else's computer and taking valuable data isn't a crime in Australia?
Hijack??? YES, the US should be allowed to .au laws. Typical /. misguidedness.
"hijack"
Same reason people should NOT be all happy about
Linux in Iran. Iran allows people to steal your
IP.
If he was by himself without partners then he should not be extradited but because he had business partners in the US, yes extradition is justified.
He conspired to break US laws with others in the US - that is where the difference is. That is why he should be proscuted in the US.
...only if American citizens will be expedited to Australia should they violate any Australian crimes. Either it goes both ways equally or it doesn't fly at all.
U.S. citizens don't deserve 'get out of jail free cards' just because they like bombing people who don't do what they tell them to.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
And if the US is allowed to hold non-US citizens under retrospective laws, why is it so reluctant to (a) participate in a global criminal court; or (b) allow extradition of US citizens to foreign military courts for grievous cases of friendly fire (thinking back to first Gulf war). Surely murder and manslaughter are crimes in US territories too?
I'm sorry, but regardless of the merits of the arguments on any side of this case, the use of the word "hijack" in the introduction of the issue simply invokes a bias that destroys any hope for an objective reception of the point at hand. If you want a serious debate, start with a serious question.
If the U.S. get's away with this it will be because the Australian courts let them.
You can't blame the U.S. for trying, but the blame ultimately will lie at the doorstep of the Australian government and judicial system if they manage to extradite the guy.
Of course there is no frikin way he should be extradited, this is just nuts. If the law doesn't cover it then change the law, but foreign citizens should not have to be concerned about U.S. law in any way shape of form.
We're not judges. It's up to the courts to peruse the intricacies of leagality on the matter. And then make a judgement based on their findings. But what's significant IMHO is that this man is just another file sharer fighting the antiquated ways of the past. And for every one like him arrested, they'll be a hundred others to take his place.
File shares of the world unite, we have nothing to lose but our lives. And if my life is to be sacrificed in a Federal Prison for having the audacity to share share my hard drive, then such a life can hardly be worth living. Let us stand up for ourselves.
John Ashcroft told me about this, but told me to keep it secret. Clients for the Gnutella P2P network
He also said Linux users can go straight to Gnutella
Now they'll have a file on me.
Consider that paragon of social tolerance, the Netherlands. People there smoke pot there openly and it's easy to buy. Some marijuana markets are even run by police units, the better to keep out purveyers of hard drugs. One police official credited widespread use of pot with preventing soccer hooliganism during the 2002 world cup!
But, except for medical uses, pot is still very much illegal in the Netherlands. The tolerant attitude prevents the law from being enforced, but the bluenoses are still able to keep it on the books!
My thoughts exactly...
It depends on the possible threat though (FEAR) that has been created by this individual trading warez.
It worries me that a great deal of action is taken due to the fear shared by a small but influential number of people.
A fear of the Domino effect, a fear that Iraq could produce and use weapons of mass distruction. Many individuals came out condeming the fact that Iraq could produce or even had such weapons, but fear drove them to a decision to invade.
It's something that's becoming ever apparent in a lot of decissions that being made, fear...
Well... I think I'll be moded flamebait/troll.. but I just had to get that off my chest
Yes you are right.
There is no reason to think that the Saudi Authorities would be particularly interested in any Americans commiting acts of indecency.
Saudi Arabia has a big portfolio of its own problems to deal with, without concerning itself with any immoral people 8000 miles away.
The same goes for most countries, who have enough difficulties controlling their own populations, regardless of those abroad.
In the case of the Australian, his crime is perceived as big, because it hurts some very rich people, so he is made a special case.
Of course, I am sure that the Saudi Government would be very pleased if the US government took a bit more of a hardline on people selling sex.
Don't forget that Saudi Arabia does operate some forms of censorship to weed out immoral sites, though of course, this is an activity that is at best only going to scratch the surface of the problem.
The US hijacks entire governments and countries all the time.
What's a little thing about hijacking some other country's laws?
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Each year US taxpayers send $1.2 billion to decendents of convicts, convicts so bad for society that England wanted nothing to do with them. Sad :(, but True! :)
brk
BUt I want to visit someday.
read this study before whining about marijuana and driving. Also, it's just silly to imagine that the only reason pot hasn't been legalized is that we don't have the right test to determine if someone is "under the influence."
criminalizing some code-breaking => math is a crime.
Obviously, that's an over-generalization. Only some math is a crime, and it's because doing some types of math can actually harm someone else. You're living in the myth that something as seemingly 'pure' as math could never cause a problem. That's just not true... Every type of expression may cause harm in some cases, and in such cases it may become a crime or a tort...
will wack them hard with some political stick not visible to joe
average. I guess its more a question of will the OZ have the balls
to face off BBB in face of the consequences. FOr this sort of action
a global govt would be needed and we all know who would resist
that concept hard - the big louts that preach freedom the loudest -
because then they would no longer have the power and control to weild for their personal interests.
Australia stopped being fair years ago. Now, thanks to John Howard, we are America's bitch. Huzzah!
We don't protect our citizens held in Guantanomo because "We don't have the laws to prosecute them, and the Americans do" in the words of our foreign minister, Alexander Downer. To me, if there is no law against it, he was not doing something illegal. It may have been morally questionable, but not illegal, to attend a merc training camp in a foreign country. Not fighting for the 'other side', just being there.
We were aforefront member of the coalition of the willing, and..
grrr
Sorry, this stuff just makes me mad.
Yay me!
The US leaders and MANY of the people sincerely believe that the USA has done enough for the security of the world, that it deserves a perpetual exemption from ever again becoming beholden to ANY other force. The idea is that if the US had stayed out of WWI and WWII, the rest of the world would be hell, and the US would be the only habitable part of the world today...
In any case the 'work both ways' comment was intended to say that the rules of international trade and extradition agreements are symmetrical / reciprocal.
US people are going to flock to AU product
Well actually. I own a pair of 'staintune' mufflers for my bike, two bullwhips and have bought a fair amount of kangaroo hide for various projects; all of which were sourced from .au.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Perhaps you should study more American history. Georgia was a penal colony before the American Revolution.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
Interesting how we see strong-arm tactics against some aussie warez-puppy
I believe this is the group that worked with DVD-jon to crack DeCSS. The MPAA has greased a lot of political pockets to get revenge for this act. It's that simple, he was not just singled out for no reason.
Deuteronomy 13:06-9
"why do so many Slashdotters think there's no such thing as criminal copyright infringement?".
Perhaps because we don't live in the US?
This is what makes it extraordinarily unusual that the matter is subject to extradition.
Because US citizens have the right to a fair trial. You can't get that in a global criminal court.
So a nation that is built on laws thinks it should be above the law. That, anonymous coward, is in direct opposition to the fundamental principals of the United States... everyone has equal protection under the law, and all laws must be administered equally and fairly to all.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
Would you prefer to be tried in a US court or in some 'world' court with dubious judges, procedures, laws and protections? The US has double standards because, frankly, the rest of the world's courts aren't up to US standards. The Italian Supreme Court once ruled that it wasn't sexual harrassment when a man groped an employee because the woman was really hot and wore a tight outfit. And given anti-American sentiments, I'm not sure that Americans can be given a fair trial. However much you hate Tony Blair and Bush, to accuse and try to indict him for war crimes in Iraq is mind bogglingly stupid. If they truly wanted to indict mass-murderers, they would go after people like Saddam, Mugabe, Kim Il Jong, etc... but since they all are US adverseries they get a pass. (I give the people of France a pass since knew nothing of Saddam's atrocities. Their reporters were busy slandering the US with 'eyewitness' reports of wholesale civilian slaughter by US troops.)
Many of my friends are in JAG and they take their jobs seriously. There are three US soldiers being court marshalled right now because they abused their authority in Iraq (beat Iraqi prisoners, threatened death while interrogating another, etc.) all of it happening under already existing laws. The US has its own laws prohibiting war crimes and genocide and has already signed treaties also prohibiting such behavior. All the ICC treaty would do is to give jurisdiction to the ICC (if the US has ratified the treaty) in the case where the US refused to prosecute an alleged war crime. Given the sheer idiocy shown by fringe left in their choice of indictments, I actually don't blame Bush & co for being worried that the ICC would be abused. Look at it this way. The US is a reasonably responsible 'parent' and they're saying that they can spank their kids but they're not going to let someone else spank them. It's not like the US is allowing our troops to run rampant or going out and committing crimes (unlike the UN troops who somehow get away with trafficking underage prostitutes in Serbia, Bosnia, Somalia, etc.).
As for Gitmo, I hate it. It is idiotic and doesn't fully conform to our own Constitution much less the Geneva conventions but those suspects are from countries that did't actually have functioning courts or functioning societies for that matter. It's difficult to prosecute those suspects. (A pair of teenagers were sent back to Afghanistan recently although they wanted to stay. The Guardian quoted them as saying they enjoyed their stay.)
I am a lawyer (let the boos start) and therefore must post AC.
Of course, making Christian websites available would also be a crime in the MIddle East, but there'd be an exception made in the law for that.
Comments like that serve only to prove that you really ARE a "fucktard". Of course, how silly of me to forget that YOUR religion is OK, its only the others that are heretic..
Keep up the good work!
And IIRC the USA harboured some IRA terrorists that Britain wanted to question, until the US recently figured out that terrorism was a bad thing.
Australia is becoming more conservative by the day. This essentially means supporting imperialist aims of USA* in order to get some favours in return. Extradicting a citizen to a foreign country for no crimes committed is ludricrous! This is even more silly given the nature of the internet with typical users unable to understand all the laws of every country. What's next? Everyone memorizing the laws of 191 countries (as recognized by the UN)?
:( Oh, defrauding investors (a la Enron, Martha Stewart, Worldcom, etc) will also cost you less jail time than computer crime.
Conservative-types love to preach nationalism and how their citizens are all cool and all, but when citizen lives and their livelihoods are under threat, they are the first ones to ship people off.
Lastly, it should be noted that the cooked up charges by the US prosecutors can only be dreamed up in a capitalist society. How the hell can you charge a guy for $60(??) million in damages** when you can't even prove that anyone that pirated the goods would be willing to pay for it? I'm not ignoring the crime but it is truly pathetic when courts allow large corporations (and only them) to charge for POTENTIAL losses.
I urge citizens of the world to protest against policies which imprison people for potential losses without any solid basis. I also urge citizens everywhere to resist corporate favours passed under imperialist aims of country.
Sivaram Velauthapillai * Yes, forcing down your own laws (in this case US laws) on other countries is imperialist in nature. This is just like the Romans claiming everyone must follow their laws.
** Charging such high damages pretty much ensures that the defendent, if convicted, faces extremely harsh punishment. Even organized criminals, who actually kill, never get charged that much in damages!!! It wouldn't surprise me if people ended up serving more time in jail for computer crime than organized criminals
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places
It would be more correct to say that Australia and the USA are bitches for the same people.
Consider the frequently-resurrected drive to "become a republic". Repeatedly, the Ausralian public has said "No!" Yet the question still gets raised again and again. Why?
Now look closer at that whole "become a republic" idea:
By that definition, we are a republic (and thanks to Paul "get a job"/"pig farmer" Keating and a thousand other nest-lining empire builders, pretty much a banana republic). The only practical delta from a pure republic is a safety valve called "the Governer General". So what's the fuss all about? Somebody wants to take a safety valve out of our government, and it sure ain't the Australian people.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
In the UK, copyright infringement can be a criminal as well as a civil offence. If you're making profit, it probably is. For the details, see paras 107ff of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Hence the British pensioner who was arrested while on holiday in south africa due to the americans wanting someone with the same name, and passing the info on (but not bothering to check if they had the right guy for some time).
with the US that made them subject to extradition for violation of US law if Australia also had a comparable law. Australia will no doubt hold a hearing to determine if they can extradite him. This just isn't about the US being a bully. Australia signed and ratified the treaty according to their own laws.
My friend's cousin tried to blackmail some credit card companies with the threat of releasing hundreds of thousands of numbers if they didn't pay. He did this while at Harvard. He left the US the day the FBI showed up at his dorm. Since Bulgaria didn't have a computer crimes law, he couldn't be extradited to the US even though the violation of US law occurred in the US. The US played by the rules there and it's just trying to play by the rules both countries agreed to here.
Consider this case. A Canadian journalist is tortured to death in a country they have an extradition agreement with. In this instance, the killing may or may not be legal. Would you protest the US for trying to extradite the murderer? Probably not since that guy did't give you tools to infringe other people's work for your own purposes.
So when are all of those down under people gonna pay their fair share of U.S. Income Tax and Sales Tax ?
Bush Deficit Problem: SOLVED!
'G'day mate! I am from the USA IRS and I would like to talk to you about your 'roo sales...'
Unless the aussies want US "weapons inspectors" blowing the bejeezus out of everything, they'd better not try to tell Shrub he doesn't rule the whole world.
.us
All your base are belong to
Or "weapons of mass delusion"
It's very easy, and the U.S. does it all the time. It just makes a RUD - a Reservation, Understanding, or Declaration. Unless a treaty explicitly forbids it (and some do), countries can become parties without accepting the entire treaty. They do this by limiting their acceptance by a reservation (E.g.: we do not accept Article II). I think the U.S. even has a reservation in one of the Human Rights treaties disclaiming acceptance of a prohibition against capitol punishment of children. (I apologize if I am a little off on the details, but the general idea is right IIRC) Makes the US look bad, right? But this was done to ensure the states and commonwealths in the US can punish criminals to the extent they are allowed under the Constitution. (I will check my Int'l law book for the treaty if I can find it) Understandings and declarations can be used in less objectionable situations to express a country's interpretation of language in the treaty.
So long as a RUD is put forth at time of ratification, the U.S. is not bound by whichever clause is in the RUD, to the extent that the RUD says so. And the U.S. regularly does this. Treaties must be passed to the Senate for advice and consent, and they do put on RUDs when a conflict with the Constitution is forseeable.
And if a treaty gets ratified with clause in conflict with the Constitution? As per the Constitution, treaties, along with federal statutes, are the Supreme law of the land. But they come after the Constitution. In cases where a treaty calls for something that the Constitution denies (or vice versa), the Constitution wins. I seem to recall a case where the US entered into a treaty with the UK over jurisidiction over civilian dependents of military personnel. I think there were three wives involved who murdered their husbands. I forget the specifics, but they were tried without jury, following UK law as per the treaty. Upon appeal to Scotus, the treaty lost (right to jury trial for citizen prevailed).
Oh, and by the way, one thing I reacted violently to (figuratively of course) when I learned about it (being adverse to the ever-increasingly widening exertion of the power of Congress) is that while the Constitution restricts Congress'es power, there is a loophole. In many cases, things which Congress cannot do by direct legislation (or it would be unconstitutional), the federal goverment can do by treaty. So, the Congress cannot do it by federal legislation, but the federal goverment can do it by treaty or other international agreement, and rob the states and commonwealths of the power (since treaties are on the same level as federal leglisation). I'm sure the founding fathers were aware of this loophole, as I called it, but I wonder if they realized that a time would come where so many treaties would be negotiated as there are now.
..."Post As Anonymous Coward". Please remember to do this until /. developers enable the "I'm a Troll" option.
I'll tell you why many Slashdotters think there's no such thing as criminal copyright infringement -- because copyright infringement is not inherently a criminal act. In legalese, it is not malum in se. They intuit that it is a noncriminal act, and then naively assume that their beneficent government would not go around outlawing such things.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
So you think that the US will accept our rules on region free DVD and similar freedoms ?
Not a chance - the DMCA is travelling ONE way, from the US to AUS and all of the trade and law that goes with it.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
We haven't yet abolished elections so that isn't ever happening.
But what happens when the elections are not fair?
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
Interestingly, Adobe still paid well all the people who developed PS. So who's hurting. . ?
When things are 'meant' to work, nobody suffers.
-FL
I was under the impression we got bent over during the last round of trade talks. Must be some new kind of "favour".
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
I should have stated that I was referring to US residents. I don't hold you non-US folk accountable for understanding our laws -- especially when we don't understand them ourselves!
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Most of the largest warez groups are in the US, why don't they kick their balls instead of being nosy in foreign countries.
Why should australia extradite a citizen that hasn't broken australian law whenAmerica reserves the right to commit war crimes and thinks it is above all laws even an american Journailst is helping war criminals
I am so glad that's not true otherwise the world would have more of this this and finally the ultimate hypocrisy the death penalty what's the point in saying to a murder killing is wrong so were going to kill you, all that happens there is some psycho get idea that killing someone is OK because the state does it.
We're the post-9/11 United States and, unlike every other government in history, we are infinitely good and infinitely righteous: every country, every nation, can trust us to treat those of its citizens who have offended our lobbyists sponsors wonderfully.
Oop's I should have re-read your posting before I typed the above stuff oh well I've done it now. That was an excellent and subtle piece of satire well done it got me going at first.
If I'm going to be affected by U.S. law, I want a vote in U.S. elections!
some math is a crime, and it's because doing some types of math can actually harm someone else
BULL. Doing math cannot harm anyone, and the US is dumb-ass for passing a law against doing math.
It is possible to sit perfectly MOTIONLESS staring at a DRM-scrambled e-Book and purely mentally descramble and "access" (read) that book. Under the DMCA that is supposedly a crime. It is absurd to suggest that that someone was harmed by thinking those thoughts. PURE THOUGHT CRIME. And you can be impisoned for up to 10 years for it (5 years on a first offence).
Circumventing DRM-scrambling is not an infingment of copy rights. If someone both circumvents and infringes copyright then that person is already guilty of copyright infringment and can be punished for that. Creating "circumvention crime" is thus only relevant in the case of someone who circumvents WITHOUT commiting copyright infringement.
"Circumvention crime" imprisons innocent people who make perfectly legal and legitimate use. It imprisons you if you you watch a DVD you own from another region code. It imprisons you if you if you fast-forward past DVD commercials that are flagged to disable the fast-forward button.
Amusingly it does NOT imprison you if you make a million copies of that DVD and sell them. You just copy the entire DVD encryption and all onto suitable blank DVD's. {They need to be DVD(A) with teh key area available which you can pick up on e-Bay . Most recordable's are DVD(G) with the key area destroyed.} Criminalizing circumvention has absolutely nothing to do with preventing copying. You can always copy wholesale without circumventing.
Every type of expression may cause harm in some cases
You can do math through pure thought without expressing anything and it is a violation of the DMCA. Thinking cannot cause harm.
As for speech, US law is quite clear that while you can use speech during the commission of a crime, speech itself cannot be criminalized. For example I can tell you how to make a bomb. Pick up some glycerine at the drugstore. Drain some sulfuric acid out of your car battery. Order NO2 canisters (used to make whip-cream) and react it with water to make nitric acid. Distill each of the acids to high concentration. Slowly mix them with the glycerine over an ice bath. Be extremely careful - the reaction produces heat. A brownish oily liquid will float to the top. It is NITROGLYCERINE.
Congress DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER to create a law against my telling you that. The Senate commissioned a report from the DOJ and Attorney General's office and it it says exactly that - Congess does not have the power to create such a law. They can only pass a law against my doing so with actual intent to cause a crime to occur, or if I give that information to a specific person with the actual knowledge that that person intends to use it to commit a crime.
So if I do the math to be able to fast-forward a DVD I own I have harmed no one. The US congress does not have the power to create a law agaist my speaking that math to someone so that they too can (perfectly legally) fast-forward DVDs they own. However that is exactly what the bill they voted through says, therefore that bill is not an actual law. It is null and void. The Supreme court simply hasn't gotten a case about it yet and have not had a chance to announce that it is (and always has been) null and void.
The law was drafted to claim that they were criminalizing "tools", but the fact is that the "tools" the law is targeting are actually information and knowledge. It was written that way in a consious effort to cloak the true nature of the law and to circumvent Constituional limitations.
The real circumvention crime is in attempting to circumvent our constition to create the DMCA.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
They've been asked many times more than just in that referendum, the last round was not the first time the question has come up, and the answer has always been a convincing "no" for any reasonable cross-section of the population.
You haven't addressed the issue of lack of functional differences between the republic we have now, and the proposed new one. I think that's a big sticking point for lots of people. Why leap out of the frying pan if there's likely to be a fire below?
There's also the risk of getting that colour-sick boomerang flag bundled into the deal. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I know I am a FEW days late, but better late than never. That argument is pointless. If countries outside the US wasnt to be able to enforce their own companies patents and copyrights, then they need to assist in helping other countries protect theirs.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
A few days late, and I think you miss the point. US companies are able to file a civil claims to protect their copyrights in most countries outside the US.
The issue I was raising however, is whether those governments should invoke DMCA like criminal legislation, where such infringment isn't for profit.
I think not.
Simple, Australia needs our protection. How would they defend themselves otherwise. Look at all the miles of coastline, and yet only 17 million people. Thanks to us, they can sleep at night, and don't speak Indonesian, or Chinese, or Japanese, or whatever...
It is always about profit. The infringment can be seen as an infringement against companies profits. It doesn't matter if the the person commiting the infringment profited or not. It only maters if the enfringment cuts into the companies, or persons, profit.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Push Post Down 1
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Push post down 2
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
push down post 3
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
push down post 4
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
push down post 5
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Push post down 6
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
push down post 7
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Push post down 8
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Almost there, only 15 more to go
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Just 14 more to go. I'm not worried about sunscribers, after all, who would be dumb enough to subscribe on the way down?
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Push post down 11. Two minutes to wait between posts means I need to continue this exercise tommorrow.
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
OK, one more today and then that's it.
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Very insightfull post, and I fully agree.
OK, back again, new and improved, let's see if we can push 24 today.
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
numero fourteeno
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
getting there .... slowly
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
no 16
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Push post down 17
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...
OK, how about
Push down post 18!!!!
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Almost there! Only 6 to go
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
OK, so this might be lame, but who's to stop me?
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
I'm on a roll now! Three more to go and I'm done! Yeah
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Here we go! Last 3!
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Push post down 23
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Last one ... aahhhhh !
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie