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
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
If I use non-free software, I pay for it. So should you.
What the hell does this have to do with morals? Having someone murdered and not paying for your commercial software are on two totally opposite ends of the spectrum.
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.
And yes, Australia does have extradition arrangements with the U.S. But was he in the U.S. when he did the crime? And if not, is that a valid defense? If he hacked into a bank, we would want him sent to face the charges. But, not all of us have hacked into banks, but all of us have pirated software or music, therefore we want to be leanient with his sentence.
warezing is a crime in australia and many country's so this sounds supported there. The article says "Griffiths Australian lawyers are fighting the move, stating that he has never set foot in the United States and has committed no crime under Australian law" but to me thats lawyer defense standard sputtering as it IS illegal in australia.
Their lawyers are using simple SCO tactics like "our IP is in their product" they can say it but it does not make it true.
adult desktops & wallpapers
If everyone does it, is it less of a crime? Isn't that a logical conclusion of democracy, that what "everyone" (or a majority of people) want is what the law should eventually recognize as right?
Or am I just spinning out of control here?
"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."
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?
have I broken my home country's law?
Yes, if you live in any country based on any European legal tradition, or anywhere else not ruled by paranoid dictators/warlords or that kind of shit. This is what lawmakers do: Find ways of stopping this 'but this is the letter-of-the-law'-style whining oxenscheisse. If you conspire to murder, and the deliberations take place in your own country, you own the murder to virtually the same degree as the hit man.
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.
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.
The article says "Griffiths Australian lawyers are fighting the move, stating that he has never set foot in the United States and has committed no crime under Australian law" but to me thats lawyer defense standard sputtering as it IS illegal in australia.
I'm not fanmiliar with Australian copyright laws but him saying that it is not a crime is not incompatible with you saying that it is illegal. A great many things that are illegal are not crimes. And yes, the distinction can matter a lot.
If you are saying that the actions he is alleged to have performed would amount to a crime in Australia then please confirm that your familiarity with Australian law is sufficient to enable you to support that.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
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
It is a crime to eat chewinggum in Singapore. Does that mean Singapore can extradite and incarcerate every American who eats chewinggum in US soil?
Indefinitely Detained US Citizen
Those tactics are perfectly valid for defending someone in a criminal trial and a lawyer would be stupid not to do this.
In criminal trials the burden of proof is entirely on the side of the prosecutor. If he doesn't like your defense he is free to submit proof to the contrary.
Civil cases, however, both sides have the burdon of proof for the respective claims they make. A lawyer using these tactics in a civil case doesn't gain anything since it is himself who has to provide proof.
The fact that SCO uses these tactics shows that they don't care about the actual outcome of the case (they know they'll lose) but rather want to work with the effects this has outside of the case (e.G. media attention to drive their stock price).
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.
There's no relevance because they aren't the same thing. Allegedly denting the profits of American corporate profits is not the same as killing people.
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.
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.
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.
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 am neither justifying nor admonishing the law, I am merely stating that the public is more sympathetic towards it due to the fact that they could be considered guilty as well.
The facts are that these are computer crimes, and boundaries are somewhat gray when it comes to jurisdiction. If the guy was a virus writer, even if the virus was essentially harmless, we would be screaming at the top of our lungs for the chair. Spammers, same thing. The DOD warez group? They gave me all those cool games. They should get medals for fighting the Corporate Interests which are taking away my rights!
See, it's all in the perception of the law, not the letter of the law, and not the spirit. We can get outraged and call a law unjust, but we are not always objective. Pot Laws are a perfect example of this. We have large groups fighting for the right to smoke pot. Should we legalize it because a lot of people want to smoke up? Did the editors at high times give this a lot of thought, or do they just want to smoke pot?
Now, I'm all for legalizing it, but I want the same controls as alcohol. Give me a roadside test for it, that does not involve a blood test or urine test, and I'll be the the guy in the first row of the march on the capitol. Until then, simply legalizing it, even if half the population smokes, would be irresponsible. In North America, we do not have the public transportation infrastructure to give pot smokers options to travel, and we have no yardstick to measure when it's dangerous to drive under the influence.
That's enough ranting. In summary, Democracy is about being fair and responsible. Changing the laws to prevent people from becoming criminals will only lead to a land of no laws to infringe, denegrating into a cultural hedonism.
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.
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.
Bullshit. Warez is a crime IN THE US, but not in Australia.
In Germany it's illegal to say ANYTHING that is pro-nazi. Do you think that the US would even consider extraditing one of its citizens who posted something pro-nazi on a website? Of course not.
This is lunacy, pure and simple.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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?
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?
I think the subject, says it all!
Here's a few boosts to get your clue train back on track:
.nfo file that advertised a warez website. In fact, I never see anything in any distro group's packaging that advertises a warez website. The only time you ever see ads like that in a distro package is when the ads are FROM the website you're downloading from.
1) I haven't seen anything in any Drink or Die
2) Anyone with more than a week's experience in software piracy knows not to go to a warez website to get anything. Noobs will try it at first, get sick of the porn ads, redirects, dirty tricks, etc., and then gravitate to where the real distribution takes places: IRC, Usenet, or P2P, including your beloved BitTorrent. Or do you think that BT is used to only distribute Linux distros?
3) Their major crime, in your mind, is "stealing bandwidth". Their "theft of bandwidth" is nothing compared to the theft of bandwidth occurring due to spyware, and that's nothing compared to the same regarding the recent spate of trojans and worms that we've all been suffering with.
4) It's not the pirates' fault that you didn't secure or monitor your FTP. That's your fault. Take some responsibility.
There are lots of arguments to be made against software piracy, but yours isn't among them.
If using Linux is about choice, how come people complain when I choose to use Windows?
You do realize, this is one of the weakest arguments you can possibly make. "Forget all intellectual arguments, precedent, centuries of commonlaw. If this happened to YOU, you'd want him hung! So it's OK to hang him!"
Try giving a few of us the benefit of the doubt that we DO value the system and won't automatically join the lynch mob at the first chance. Or, failing that, how about the idea that the entire purpose of having *impartial* judicial systems is to make sure that the victims DON'T turn into blindly self-serving mobs?
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Hey, Dave Barry just explained it all in his recent column:
Q. Is that legal?
A. It is if you have nuclear weapons.
Now, he was talking about a different topic, but I think it's a good explanation for a lot that's going on in the world now. It certainly explains the US government current foreign policies.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.
Singapore bans the import, sale and manufacture of chewing gum. It isn't illegal to chew it.
Chuckle.
A lot like the way the DMCA *doesn't* make fair use illegal.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
This person has not set foot in the US.
Are you saying that if I sit off-shore and beam "illega"l materials over US airwaves, that I should be arrested and tried, even though I'm not a US citizen and I was in international waters when I did the braodcasting?
Funny, 'cause the US does that all the time... we put ships and aircraft near "evil" countries and beam in locally illegal content in an attempt to incite the population to rebel.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
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
Or use one of the zillion lousy photo-editing applications that come bundled with cameras, scanners, printers, etc. There's probably one on your machine already, force-installed by some driver installation.
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!
I'm not arguing that Guantanamo Bay is FUCKED UP.
But it is true that there aren't any American citizens there.
It is my personal feeling that those rights we guarantee ourselves should be guaranteed to anyone (I think they're a good basis for CIVIL RIGHTS and HUMAN RIGHTS, not just some cool shit we give to those of us who live here). But the Bush administration disagrees, and technically (as I understand it) the Consitution doesn't grant those rights to the non-Americans.
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.
"If this guy is extradited to the US from Australia, then I expect we'll start seeing China start trying to extradite operators of web sites around the world for violating China's decency and media control laws. It's the same issue. The outrage the US government would project over such a move would be overwhelming, yet they expect people to accept this case."
I guess people are reading "world's first warez extradition" and thinking that this case sets some sort of precedent -- yours is not the only "if this happens, then that will happen" post. It may be the first warez extradition, but this sort of thing has been going on for centuries.
"The Internet is a borderless medium, a nation's laws should only apply to issues where all of the events and parties are within that nation's borders."
Remember, one of the hacked FTP servers he controlled was at MIT. I believe that if you hack into, or otherwise use a US computer in an unauthorized manner, you should be subject to US law -- I know this guy has our sympathy and many Slashdotters see him as a "good guy," but this principle also allows us to go after child pornographers and the like. And, this guy's free will does come into play... if he did not want to run the risk of running afoul of US law, he should not have run an FTP site here to distribute software released by US companies.
To be clear, I do see your point -- I simply do not think that the Internet should be a gaping loophole of this sort. If I live in the US and somebody's trying to hack into my PC, or they're distributing my intellectual property, or they're trying to sell me child pornography, I care not one bit if they've moved to, say, Tonga to avoid prosecution.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.