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 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
I don't think it's up for any debate as to whether he committed no crime in his home country
Yes it is. In Australia they have things called "trials" precisely for the purpose of debating such issues.
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
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.
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.
His acts may have been criminal in many countries, but that does not mean he committed the crimes in those countries. If I shoot a canadian businessman while he is in France, i've committed a crime in france, but wouldn't be extradited to Canada.
....
Question with the sort of thing this case deals with is where the crime is actually committed. I think that as long as he hosted stuff on a server in Australia and he was in Australia, it does not matter which US copyrights he violated, he did not commit a crime in the US, so he shouldn't be extradited. How can he possibly break US law without being in the US or doing anything in the US?
If the server he is using is located in the US, then maybe things are different. But just because the object was from the US doesn't mean he's broken US laws...
Of course he can be prosecuted in Australia for breaking Australian law
The fact that he's going to be charged in Australia anyway, which may very well be true, is not that relevant. The premise behind your excuse is that his situation wouldn't be any different on either side of the pacific. I would beg to differ. In the US, prison sentences are often longer than in other places, and prison conditions are atrocious to the point where violence, rape and murder between inmates are barely considered abnormal anymore. Trials are very heavily influenced by the amount of money you can spend on a lawyer. I have no particular knowledge of Australia, but I would imagine the guy's situation could be considerably different if he were tried at home.
/usr/share/morlock
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.
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
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?
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?
An analogue would be attempting to extradite a 419 scammer from Nigeria because they defrauded a North American.
Oh gee, can we?
Twenties Retirement
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.
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
"Extrudited"? Is that where they squeeze you through a small hole and then send you back home?
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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
But if you stood across the border in Minnesota and shot the Canadian, you've committed the crime in Canada(?) and would be extradited.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You fail to see the big picture. For instance, several books are prohibited in Iraq, Iran, and several other countries. Should Amazon.com employees be extradited to face death penalty in those countries for selling books that are prohibited there?
It's the same thing. You can't allow laws from one country to affect citizens of another or the most restrictive laws from any one country would apply to all Netizens. That's not wise.
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.
You're in Minnesota. That's instant punishment. If it weren't for their hockey team, it would have been labelled 'Hell' a long time ago.
Who modded this insightful? It's stupid. It doesn't matter where the victim lives, it matters where the crime was committed. If I rob a Swiss tourist in Sydney, do I get extradited to Switzerland to stand trial for robbery? Think, people, think!
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
That's the problem. If this goes through, just wait until Singapore shows up demanding to take you to trial under their "Undesirable Publication Act" or any of a long list of repressive countries with strict decency laws. This is a very dangerous line to cross as merely communicating with people in other countries can be considered criminal depending on the content.
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?
What about all the below-freezing weather? If Minnesota was Hell, then Hell would have already frozen over, which would mean we would have to get around to implementing IPv6.
I think the subject, says it all!
So how is an Australian held subject to U.S. law.. AFAIK... he doesn't have the right to vote in U.S. elections. So we would be holding him subject to laws in a country in which he has no representation.
This just underscores my prediction on how the internet will eventually lead to world government.
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.
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.
This is true, but the location of the victim is entirely irrelevant. What is important in law is the location of the crime. If I steal an American's luggage in Sydney while he's still in Los Angeles because he missed his connection at the airport, I haven't committed a crime in the US, have I? Just as you say, the location of the crime is difficult to pinpoint, and that is what is at issue. The fact that the victim of the crime is a corporation based in the US is irrelevant. It could just as easily be a German company with a US copyright.
P.S. Do you always feel that you need to make the fallacy of personal attack for your point to be considered valid?
Sorry. I'm frequently a bit of a jerk before I've had my coffee.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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?
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.
Hehe, I've got at least one guy that feels I made him what he is today, his words, not mine. About 10-12 years ago, I gave him a warezed version of 3D studio max - this was back in the days of slow modems, swapping floppies and data parties, even before we got on Internet. Finding the apps you wanted was no easy task - not like today where you'll have any app you want within 24 hrs. We were barely teens and sure didn't have the money on our allowance.
I was pretty much his last hope, if I didn't have it he'd probably given up. But that sparked his interest - he's today a 3D designer, and has done 3D graphics for our country's biggest commercial TV station, among other things. After that school we went our separate ways, and I had no idea until I met him again a few years ago, and it was almost embarrasing how glad he was to thank me.
To me, it was just a few floppies I copied in minutes, long ago forgotten. I barely remember even having the program. To him, it was something that had changed the path of his life. It is a most remarkable feeling, because most of your life you don't see what could have been, even with the big things - how would the life of those around have been without you? Better? Worse? Do I even make a difference? Hard to say. That gave me a little glimpse of it - I was there, at the right place, at the right time and helped a friend - and it mattered. And that makes life worth living.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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.
If the server he is using is located in the US, then maybe things are different.
Ding-ding
"The indictment alleged Mr Griffiths controlled access to a drop site for pirated software at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer network."
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Yeah right. More like an extension of a de facto American Empire. And I, for one, welcome our new Freedom Loving, cigar-chewing, baseball-cap wearing, internet-owning overlords. In the US of A, the corporations copyright you. No, wait -
h
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
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
"" Here's a few boosts to get your clue train back on track:
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?""
Heh. Only newbies/lamers use P2P, IRC or Usenet. Granted, they are the most widely used methods of 'distribution' to end users, but most real warez groups only want the respect from their peers, not from the leecher masses. They couldn't care less what happens outside their small circle. There are plenty of parasites who work below them to get the stuff to all the (semi-)public distribution channels, but they usually have little to do with the crackers and the initial distributors.
Sufficiently secured IRC networks are fine for chatting, but the stuff is moved using secure/encrypted FTP.
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
There is a town literally called Hell in Michigan. Don't believe me? Google it.
How ya like dat?
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.
You don't actually believe that do you?
In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
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.
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.
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!
"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.