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.
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.
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
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
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.
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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!