Warez Suspect To Be Extradited, After All

usefool writes "After the U.S.'s first extradition request against an Australian man was denied, the U.S. appealed that decision and has now won the right to try Hew Raymond Griffiths in the U.S."

Comments

Hello NWO

[Izago909]

Does everyone remember the large protests over the last couple decades against what people perceived as the formation of a one world government? They are usually based in the U.S. and targeted at the WTO, World Bank, and U.N. I guess the Christian bible has a couple verses people interpret to mean "no one world government". Who would have thought it would be the U.S. that became the world government? I say all of us should go out tomorrow and protest our government. Also, before I get a whole bunch of conservatives calling me a troll and arguing that patriotism is defined as agreeing with the government, Let's not forget that one can hate his government, but love his country.

Re:Hello NWO

[over_exposed]

Well said... I agree completely with your statements, but add this into the pot. Why should someone who commits crimes against someone in another country not be held liable for those crimes simply because of geographic boundaires? Now you can argue about the defenition of crime in relation to warez until you're blue in the face, but I'm not going to tread there...

Re:Hello NWO

[Anonymous Coward]

Who would have thought it would be the U.S. that became the world government?

Erm, probably just about everyone *outside* the U.S?

Re:Hello NWO

[Veridium]

Why should someone who commits crimes against someone in another country not be held liable for those crimes simply because of geographic boundaires?

I'm not going to touch the definition of crime bit with regards to warez, but I think if you commit a crime, you should be tried by the laws of the country you were in at the time you commited it.

Re:Hello NWO

[stubear]

Where did the crime occur though? He was moving bits around and some of these bits were moved within the US, not just within Austrailia. Drug kingpins in Columbia found themselves being hunted by the US military and Law Enforcement even though they never stepped foot in the US, they merely ran criminal organizations which sold drugs within US borders. This is a very similar type of crime and he should be happy we didn't send in Delta like we did for Pablo Escobar.

Re:Hello NWO

[myowntrueself]

"Why should someone who commits crimes against someone in another country not be held liable for those crimes simply because of geographic boundaires?"

Sure. So an Brit who offends Robert Mugabe, apparently an offence in Zimbabwe, should be extradited to stand trial in Harare.

Right.

Under the UN charter, a person cannot be tried for an act which was not illegal at the time and place it was committed.

But then we are talking about the USA (in the article) and we all know how important respect for UN conventions and international treaties are for America...

Re:Hello NWO

[Izago909]

You should read the first thread of the original artice.

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=100421&cid =8561985

You'd better believe that people would protest the extradition of a U.S. citizen to the Saudi's for criticizing Islam.

Re:Hello NWO

[Veridium]

Where did the crime occur though?

This really isn't as tricky as lawyers make it out to be. In fact, it's because of BSing lawyers that this is even complex. Who comittted the crime? The person, or the bits? Now, where was the person when he comitted the crime?

Yeah, I know fscking lawyers and politicians will argue otherwise, but really, this is truly the most logical way of looking at it.

Re:Hello NWO

[drsmithy]

Who would have thought it would be the U.S. that became the world government?

Been a bit out of touch for the last hundred-odd years, have you ?

Re:Hello NWO

[mcrbids]

Why should someone who commits crimes against someone in another country not be held liable for those crimes simply because of geographic boundaires?

Probably the most-quoted phrase in this thread... a true troll if ever I saw one. That said, I'm biting...

Let's say you have a nice, WWII bomb shell. It might still be active, it might not. But, it's decorated your grand-uncle's porch for 30-some-odd years. Grand uncle dies, and you get it.

You sell it on EBay. Now, it's not illegal to own this shell in the US.

Suddenly, somebody from France extradites you for attempting to sell "military munitions to civil personnel". But wait a minute... it's not illegal to own that in the US! But, it is/was being sold to people IN FRANCE!

The "Intarweb thingar" had made a mess of the legal system in many respects - with courts and jurisdictions the world over scrambling to remain relevant.

In the above cases, many courts have chosen to construe the act of selling happening whereever the sale "took place" - in other words, where the customer is.

So, are you ready to defend yourself in a French court?

Re:Hello NWO

[mlyle]

By this logic, arguably the US wouldn't be able to try Osama Bin Laden if he was captured, despite the fact that he allegedly facilitated and conspired in the murder of 3000 people in the US. And the country whose laws he was under at the time wasn't particularly interested in trying him either.

Likewise, if someone committed bank fraud from Australia against the US, it would hardly be the Australian authorities investigating it, nor would anyone in Australia be damaged-- so it wouldn't exactly be very interesting to Australian prosecutors. Hence we have extradition treaties for this type of thing.

I agree being extradited for being a indiscriminate warez kiddie is a bit extreme.

Re:Hello NWO

[Loadmaster]

Sure. So an Brit who offends Robert Mugabe, apparently an offence in Zimbabwe, should be extradited to stand trial in Harare.

Mugabe can try, but Britain would never allow it. Just like France refuses to extradite the Unicorn Killer. In this case, the U.S. asked Australia to extradite him. They complied. An Australian court said send him to America. Seems like the U.S. respected their laws pretty well.

Re:Hello NWO

[Veridium]

By this logic, arguably the US wouldn't be able to try Osama Bin Laden if he was captured, despite the fact that he allegedly facilitated and conspired in the murder of 3000 people in the US. And the country whose laws he was under at the time wasn't particularly interested in trying him either.

Don't you think, in the interest of fairness and justice, that Osama should be tried by an international court instead? Trying him in the US would be like letting the victim of an alleged crime be the judge of the accused.

Likewise, if someone committed bank fraud from Australia against the US, it would hardly be the Australian authorities investigating it, nor would anyone in Australia be damaged-- so it wouldn't exactly be very interesting to Australian prosecutors. Hence we have extradition treaties for this type of thing.

That's a good point. Except I find it hard to believe that Australia's legal system allows for its citizens to commit bank fraud on foreigners. I would think, in the interest of international good will, that they would prosecute people commiting such crimes. It makes more sense, in my opinion, than extradition treaties which ship people to other countries to be tried for crimes not comitted there. Extradition treaties, *IMO*, should be limited towards handing over people wanted for crimes comitted in foreign countries.

Re:Hello NWO

[mefus]

Um, because a non-profit warez outfit isn't a crime by traditional definitions? Because comparing warez d00dz to 9/11 is laughably absurd?

That logic?

Re:Hello NWO

[ddavis539]

It's very disturbing that a computer connection is now legally equivalent to being physically present in order to commit a crime.

If I'm logged into my banks computer to review my account while it's being robbed, am I an accessory to the crime?

If I discuss through e-mail religion, politics, etc... with a citizen of another country which is deemed critical or violates some law in China for example, could the fact that my mail server connects to a mail server located in China become equivalent to me actually going to China to speak against the government?

This new precedent combined with the musings of Orrin Hatch make for a pretty scary future.

Combine this with IP spoofing and a whole new dimension to identity theft and it's consequences is born.

On the upside, I know a couple of politicians who could be extradited somewhere, I'm sure they've done something that's illegal in another country.

Re:Hello NWO

[10Ghz]

You are talking about actions of few UN peace-keepers, not actions of UN as a whole.

Re:Hello NWO

[mlyle]

Well, Australia's government has chosen to enter into a reciprocal extradition agreement with the US; they would expect a US citizen to be extradited to Australia if the circumstances were reversed.

In most cases, the place where victims are located has a lot more incentive and ability to prosecute in most cases. This is why extradition agreements exist. At the same time, extradition agreements are generally purposely limited to 'serious' crimes, to prevent their overuse and miscarriages of justice. Unfortunately, criminal violation of copyright has become a much more broadly appliable statute since information technology has come along, and I think that's where the problem is-- the laws are out of date for the problem.

Think of how difficult it would be for Australia to prosecute an Australian for bank fraud committed against citizens in a foreign country, though-- they would have no power to compel witnesses, to subpoena most of the relevent evidence, etc. Not to mention that most prosecutors would care a lot more about cases where their direct constituents are the victim, rather than foreigners. It would be virtually impossible to prove a case under such circumstances.

Re:Hello NWO

[Gentlewhisper]

"Australia could just as easily extradite US citizens for similar offenses."

You must be kidding. When was the last time an American was extradicted for anything, let alone something like this?

That's right, never. On the other hand, when other countries do it to the US, they will whinge and throw their fists about like some cry baby, until they get their way!

Re:Hello NWO

[steve_bryan]

Has everyone already forgotten the fatwah that was issued for Salman Rushdie for "committing a crime" in one country while residing in another? His crime was writing a book considered impious ("The Satanic Verses") and his sentence was death.

So if US law can be applied world wide why not Islamic law? In the past I thought most US policy makers showed proper caution about allowing too much authority that could supercede national sovereignty. The principle is much more important than the specifics. So it is not bad enough that people who have government granted monopolies are given authority over what technology is allowed, now they are allowed to set precedents that could undermine national sovereignty? What a looming nightmare.

Re:Hello NWO

[antic]

Can I just expand on that sentence of yours:

"In this case, the U.S. (a country of 200+ million people currently exerting its military dominance in 2 other countries) asked Australia (a country of 20 million people and comparably little world impact) to extradite him."

I appreciate your argument, but it's becoming less simple to turn down requests from the US.

Re:Hello NWO

[sosume]

Excuse me, why should a new zealand citizen abide to US law especially if he's never been there? I am dutch and can smoke whatever I want. Does this mean the subpoena's will start showing up at my doorstep?

Is this a new form of colonialism? Do we all 6.3 billion have to abide to the law of a mere 300 million?

Re:Hello NWO

[badasscat]

Don't you think, in the interest of fairness and justice, that Osama should be tried by an international court instead?

And how would an international court, made up of say, France, Libya, China, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Canada and Greece, be necessarily so much more impartial? I am certainly no Bushite, but even I, as a New Yorker who lived through 9/11, would find the idea of an international court to try bin Laden patently offensive. He committed a crime against me, in my territory and I deserve to have him tried in a court that follows my laws. The crime was committed here, and he should be tried here. Victims have rights too, you know, and that's why extradition treaties exist in the first place.

Trying him in the US would be like letting the victim of an alleged crime be the judge of the accused.

No, because he would not be tried for attacking the United States and he would not be judged by the American people - he would be tried for the murder of almost 3,000 people in the United States, and he would be judged by trained and experienced legal professionals just like every other case in this country.

Obviously, as in any other case, the judge would have to have had no personal involvement in the attacks. It's a judge's duty by law to be impartial; now, not all of them are, but I'd trust a US federal judge any day of the week over any international court, which these days would almost necessarily be comprised primarily of countries not friendly to us and in many cases openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause.

Re:Hello NWO

[pjt33]

I think you probably mean 40-odd years. 60 years ago the British Empire still covered something like a third of the world's land surface: it was in the 1960s that it really broke up.

Re:Hello NWO

[Welsh Dwarf]

which these days would almost necessarily be comprised primarily of countries not friendly to us and in many cases openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause.

This is unfortunatly the reality the US faces today, and whilst I disagee that the French would go soft on OBL if we managed to get our hands on him (It's just Iraq we object to, which is another war entirly) we have to admit that a lot of countries don't hold the US in their hearts atm.

Now, back to the question, in a court of law, everyone (prosecution and defense asside) have to be independant for the accused to have a fair trile. This counts just as much for an international court of law, as for a US one.

The problem is this: For OBL's crimes, a jury trial would be de riggeur (unless you have military tribunerals for everything by then). How do you expect to find 12 Americans who would be able to cast an unbiasd opinion on 9/11

It would be much easier to find neutral countries

Re:Hello NWO

[Veridium]

He committed a crime against me, in my territory and I deserve to have him tried in a court that follows my laws.

Well you've already judged him guilty so that's pretty much that.

And how many people judged Saddam Hussein guilty of having WMD?

Obviously, as in any other case, the judge would have to have had no personal involvement in the attacks. It's a judge's duty by law to be impartial

Yeah, I'm sure any given federal US judge is going to be impartial to Bin Laden. We would breed even more hatred if we attempted to try him in this country. It would be better if he was killed in a fight.

over any international court, which these days would almost necessarily be comprised primarily of countries not friendly to us and in many cases openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause.

None of the countries you named here:
France, Libya, China, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Canada and Greece
are openly sympathetic to bin Laden's cause. The one suspect on the list for me would be Libya, but they have made substantial disavowals of terrorism with real deeds. Do you really think France, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Canada, and Greece are hostile to us? China, maybe.

Re:Hello NWO

[Wudbaer]

But what would the US have done if they had not extradited him ? Being pissed off ? Likely. Invaded ? Hardly. Economic sanctions ? Not really.

Re:Hello NWO

[famebait]

Suddenly, somebody from France extradites you

First, look up "extradite".

Second: Although the recent french initiatives against merely advertising internationally something that would be illegal in France is more than a little suspect, if you actually do ship something to France, then yes you do have the obligation to check that you are not breaking french law by doing so. Just like the US can convict you for shipping heroin to the US from a hypothetical free-heroin country. Of course you have.

Now, if your country has no extradition treaty with France, you can of course choose to ignore any French sanctions against you. Provided you are happy to stay only in countries that have no extradition treaty with france and not hold any assets in France.

Re:Hello NWO

[oddfox]

"It's sad to see everyone jump on the bandwagon and dunp on the French, it just shows up the moronity of the typical ugly American."

Kettle, meet pot. Pot, meet kettle.

Re:Hello NWO

[olderchurch]

First of all let's get one thing straight: The International Court of Justice does not try war crimes:

Contentious cases between States
The Parties
Only States may apply to and appear before the Court. The Member States of the United Nations (at present numbering 191) are so entitled.

Only cases between countries. And yes there is the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia" and they only prosecute war criminals from the former Yugoslavia.

And then again your arguments are shaky. You say that you and the people in the United States are the victims, but what about the citizens of Madrid or some other places in the world.

Also do you really think that OBL would get a fair trail in the US? You are talking about a judge, but what about the jury? I reckon that it would be impossible to find an impartial jury in the US.

Re:Hello NWO

[cozziewozzie]

By this logic, arguably the US wouldn't be able to try Osama Bin Laden if he was captured, despite the fact that he allegedly facilitated and conspired in the murder of 3000 people in the US. And the country whose laws he was under at the time wasn't particularly interested in trying him either.

Some of us feel that Osama should be tried by an international tribunal, just like Milosevic, for his crimes against humanity.

I like his logic. Bits are information. Otherwise, you'd be able to try every writer who has ever written a book, just because someone read this book in a country which doesn't agree with its views. Think Salman Rushdie and 'Satanic Verses'. Should he have been extradited to Iran because of the fatwa and sentenced to death?

Re:Hello NWO

[cozziewozzie]

You are underestimating the role of the US in the world. Currently many Eastern European countries are being coerced into signing a non-extradition treaty with the US. The treaty goes like this:

You sign that you will never hand over an American citizen for whatever reason, or whatever crime to anyone other than the US. You, on the other hand, get to extradite your own citizens whenever anyone asks. Bosnia and Romania have already signed. Do you know why?

If Americans leave Bosnia, there will likely be another genocide just like during the 92-95 war.

Re:Hello NWO

[DNS-and-BIND]

Wait - I thought American military interventions abroad were a BAD thing. Are you saying that something good happened?

Where's the oil in Bosnia?

Re:Hello NWO

[cozziewozzie]

Oh, don't get me wrong, this intervention was a good thing, and it should have happened much much earlier.. The difference is that it happened at the plea of the Bosnian government, and was not an invasion based on some fishy 'evidence' of weapons of mass destruction.

Re:Hello NWO

[Wudbaer]

Usually it's a tit-for-tat. Bosnia gets protection by US troops, which costs the US shitloads of money and weakens the already stretched resources of the US military. Romania might get something else out for them. Money ? Special status for doing trade ? Large US bases ?

If those nations trade their national sovereignity for bribes by the US it's their loss. But I don't think that they are forced by the US with dark and ominous threats as the grand parent insinuated without having considerable advantages from this.

Re:Hello NWO

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's simplify this. If you stand in Niagara Falls, New York and shoot someone in Niagara Fall, Ontario, where did you commit the murder?

The sensible solution is to allow the trial to occur in the place where the damage is done.

Re:Hello NWO

[overunderunderdone]

It's sad to see everyone jump on the bandwagon and dunp on the French

Deriding the French is an old American pastime that we inherited from the English. From Shakespeare to Al Bundy the figure of the effete Frenchman is as engrained in our culture as "the moronity of the typical ugly American" appears to be in yours. Are such stereotypes unfair? Sure, but they also summarize conflicting cultural values that DO exist - notice how nicely the two stereotypes dovetail.

Re:Hello NWO

[CrimsonAvenger]

Currently many Eastern European countries are being coerced into signing a non-extradition treaty with the US.

How are they being coerced? Just curious.

If Americans leave Bosnia, there will likely be another genocide just like during the 92-95 war.

Nonsense! The UN will prevent that, just like it is preventing genocide from occuring in the Sudan!.

Oh, wait....

Re:Hello NWO

[Wudbaer]

The amazing thing with those bases is (myself being in Germany in a city that had several large US bases until a couple of years ago) that as long as they were there people kept shouting and spraying "Ami go home". The moment they decided to leave everyone at least in the regions the bases were in and in big politics went "NONONO ! You can't just leave ! What about local economy !"

This is especially bizarre if one considers the quarrels Germany and the US had about Iraq; on one hand people don't want the US to operate from German soil against Iraq or the like, on the other (what's been happening in the last couple of weeks since Mr. Rumsfeld made the big announcement about a major change in the US forces' structure in Europe) it is seen as punishment if the US want to close bases and people are upset. Seemingly having something to eat is more important than lofty ideals. ;-)

Indeed in my city (Ulm/Neu-Ulm in Southern Germany) large areas suddenly were deserted more or less over night when the US troops moved out at the beginning of the 90's, also the real estate market weakened considerably. Luckily as the city was not too bad off financially back then the city put the vacated bases and housing facilities to good use (which took a good part of the last 10 years to happen), but poorer communities or small towns somewhere in the countryside where the US base and their supplyers often are the only larger employer really got into trouble. Seems you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

...doesnt look good

[crazyray]

Unfortunately, he will probably be convicted, since the Department of Justiucs has already made agreements with his fellow DrinkOrDie members to shorten their sentences if they testify against him. http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,109806,0 0.asp

Re:...doesnt look good

[Izago909]

Yes, how dare a foreign citizen break U.S. law while never stepping foot inside the U.S. What was he thinking? After this precedent has been set, I hope you don't violate another country's laws on the internet, because it means you could be extradited.

Re:...doesnt look good

[G-funk]

Because he's not an american, and didn't commit any crimes in america, perhaps? If he pirates software in australia, give me one good reason why on earth he should go to america for trial / sentence??? I can legally shout the word "fuck" as loud as I please on the street here, but in the US (last time I checked) it's a misdimeanor crime. If there's an american around, or on the phone to somebody standing next to me, should I therefore be extradited to the US for an appearance before judge judy?

Re:...doesnt look good

[flakac]

"Unfortunately, he will probably be convicted..."

Why "unfortunately"? Sidestepping the usual arguments based on the communist manifesto ("information wants to be free"), look at it from another angle.

If the man broke the law, he should face the consequences. He broke into a computer in the USA, so he should be tried there. If it was your home computer that he broke into, you'd be screaming bloody murder, but he broke into a campus system, which somehow makes him a "hero".

He illegally distributed stolen software via this computer in the USA, so he should be tried there.

Re:...doesnt look good

[kaitou]

since when can't you legally shout obscenties on the streets? I see/hear this in New York City on a very regular basis, and no one is hauling those crackpots away.

Re:...doesnt look good

[belmolis]

According to the article, the ring of which he was allegedly a member made use of machines at MIT. If true, although he didn't physically set foot in the US, he did indeed commit crimes in the US. Moreover, copyright is protected in Australia and most other countries and by international agreements. This doesn't seem to be a case of unreasonably applying local laws to someone elsewhere who doesn't know about them or who has no reason to believe that they are relevant to him.

There are some kinds of net activity that present real jurisdictional problems, e.g. kinds of speech (such as insulting Islam) that are legal in some places but not in others, where an activity that is legal in one place spreads to a place where it is illegal by the normal operation of the internet. As far as I can see, this case doesn't fall into that category. If I sit at my terminal in the US and break into a computer in Australia and do mischief there, I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong and I have made an explicit decision to do it. It didn't just happen in the course of the normal operation of the net. Why shouldn't I be subject to prosecution in Australia?

Re:...doesnt look good

[G-funk]

That makes no sense. It's illegal for me to buy x-rated porn in Brisbane. But it's perfectly legal (not just unenforceable) for me to mail-order it from Canberra - posession of porn isn't against the law. However, if it became illegal for me to posess "Jenna loves Kobe", should somebody in Canberra be liable for me buying it from them?

Re:...doesnt look good

[bit01]

Stop equating the law with ethics. He may or may not have broken law. I don't know the particulars of this case but while I respect copyright law in general the automatic assumption that the the copyright of mass market members of the RIAA should be acknowledged is bogus. See my signature for the reason why.

And before the the RIAA parasites on this forum start targetting me please note that, no, I am not mass copier or distributer but neither I am particularly anti such people either.

IP law is an ass. Until law that represents the interests of all citizens, not just parasite corporations, is enacted, civil disobedience may be entirely appropriate. As the documentary says corporations are sociopaths, making money above all else, and need good law to keep them in check.

The fact that the GPL uses copyright law to implement its goals is irrelevant. Democracies use guns to kill people. In both cases the tools being used are appropriate to the context they are in.

---

It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.

Re:...doesnt look good

[arose]

I'm not the parent poster, but it seems that the logic is something like this: 1) An author writes a novel, it's good, but does not catch on for some reason. The author gets almost no return from it and stops writing. This is why the creator should get a proper reward. 2) An author writes a novel, it's good, and catches on for some reason. The author gets millions and stops writing because he will recieve royalties for the rest of his life. This is why the creator should get overcompensated.

Re:...doesnt look good

[Kombat]

Yes, how dare a foreign citizen break U.S. law while never stepping foot inside the U.S. What was he thinking? After this precedent has been set, I hope you don't violate another country's laws on the internet, because it means you could be extradited.

The things he did were illegal in Australia, too. Much as you may wish it were so, this is not a case of him doing something that is perfectly legal in his country, but illegal in the country attempting to extradite him.

So no, this isn't like Sudan coming after my wife (a Canadian-born, Christian caucasian) for having the audacity to walk around Canada without a head scarf (an act which is illegal in Sudan). Rather, this is like Russia coming after me for hacking (sorry, "cracking") into a Russian mainframe and stealing a bunch of government credit cards.

Nice try though. Er... not really.

Nigerians

[TibbonZero]

Now if we could only figure out a way to extradite the Nigerian Spammers...

Re:Nigerians

[circletimessquare]

Attention,

My name is Mr Momartin, I am the operational manager in spam prosecution section in charge of extradition and foreign relation of Nigerian Government. I am writing in respect of a Nigerian spammer who was caught on 25TH JULY,2004. There is an account opened in a bank here in Nigeria where he has stashed all of his ill-gotten funds and we need the cash to buy him a plane ticket to USA. Unfortunately, the account has no other beneficiary and until we caught the spammer he was the manager of a vast fraud scheme. The total amount involved is $26,000,000.00 USD.[Twenty Six million United States Dollar ]. We wish to start the first transfer with $6,000,000.00[Six million] and open successful transaction without any disappointment from your side,we shall re-apply for the transfer of the remaining balance to your account. Please help us fight email fraud and help us to extradite said criminal to the USA!

Yours truly, Mr Momartin.

Hey--if we can extradite people . . .

[base3]

. . . for copyright "crimes," surely we can force China and Korea to turn over their spam-supporting admins, right? I'd even settle for them being tried at the Hague, so long as the death penalty were on the table.

Operation Buccaneer

[crazyray]

Here is the DOJ memo announcing this arrest, quite possibly the only document the DoJ has released with both Ashcorft's name on it and the spelling of warez with a "Z" http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/December/01_crm_6 43.htm

so let me get this straight....

[John_Allen_Mohammed]

U.S. law now supersedes the written laws of all sovereign nations? Why should I bother voting at all, if the ultimate authority lays in the hands of arrogant foreigners that do not represent me....

Re:so let me get this straight....

[damiangerous]

U.S. law now supersedes the written laws of all sovereign nations?

Umm, no. The US had to go to Australia and make their case in an Australian court before an Australian magistrate (and then an Australian appeals court) who ruled based on Australian law.

Re:so let me get this straight....

[drsmithy]

Umm, no. The US had to go to Australia and make their case in an Australian court before an Australian magistrate (and then an Australian appeals court) who ruled based on Australian law.

And it's relevant to note that AUstralian copyright laws are _extremely_ strict, albeit rarely (fully) enforced. We can't even make backup copies of software we own, mix CDs of music we've bought, or record (most) things off TV without breaking copyright law.

For example, I'm amazed Apple are even able to sell the iPod here in Australia, since there's practically no way it could be used without (technically) breaking the law.

Re:so let me get this straight....

[Ravadill]

You cannot buy music through iTunes if you live in Australia (you just get a messsage stating tunes are only for sale in the US and Europe.)

Re:so let me get this straight....

[lgftsa]

We can't even make backup copies of software we own, mix CDs of music we've bought, or record (most) things off TV without breaking copyright law.

Yes, we can make copies of software for backup, archival, compatibility and bugfix purposes. That is explicitly allowed under the Copyright Act.

Artistic works, on the other hand(video, audio, etc) may only be duplicated by the National Archives and under very strict circumstances for research purposes by accredited educational institutions.

A software product containing artistic works(Encyclopaedia CDROM for example) would probably be treated as software as long as the product was treated as a whole and not broken down into it's components or the artistic works extracted.

An artistic work containing software(Audio CDROM with data track ala EMI) would probably be treated as (an) artistic work(s).

Hopefully our courts would treat these gray areas with common sense.....

Re:so let me get this straight....

[timeOday]

Granted - superficially, it's not the US that's doing something bizarre here, but Australia.

Of course the next question is what sort of pressure the US exerts on Austrialia to get de facto legal jurisdiction there, and whether it's consistent with democratic self-rule Down Under. Somehow I doubt Australia would do the same favor for its less "influential" fellow nations.

Re:so let me get this straight....

[alister]

Of course the next question is what sort of pressure the US exerts on Austrialia to get de facto legal jurisdiction there, and whether it's consistent with democratic self-rule Down Under. Somehow I doubt Australia would do the same favor for its less "influential" fellow nations.

Bugger that. We don't even complain when the US arranges to have our civilians kidnapped and held incommunicado in another foreign country and without trial for three years. Even if they've not committed a crime in that country, or against the US.

We also assist the US in its illegal wars in the (so far) vain hope that we'll score some trade benefits from it.

I'm looking forward to unAmerican thoughts becoming criminalised in the US, so that I can be extradited and tried for this Slashdot post...

Alister

Scary ... to say the least!

[Hektor_Troy]

What next? Will I be extradited for having had sex with a 16-year-old (illegal in the US)? How about drinking alcohol in public, which is illegal in many countries (Saudi Arabia for instance), or hell - buying alcohol at the tender age of 15 (illegal in the US)? How about having had sex before I was 18 (also illegal in the US)? Having had sex outside of marriage (probably illegal in Iran)? Having had anal sex while there was a third party in the sexual congress (illegal in the UK).

I'm sure I've done SOMETHING that is perfectly legal where I live, that would be sentenced very harshly in other countries. Of course the things I just mentioned are things that "hurt" other people as opposed to the almighty profit of US coorporations, so I suppose that I won't be extradited anytime soon.

Re:Scary ... to say the least!

[medelliadegray]

dont be silly.

multibillion dollar corporations dont care about those crimes. therefore, the government does not care.

corrupt form the top down.

government, big business, media (which is sort of BBusiness). their having a wild Menage a Trois, and the people are oblivious to it or just no longer care.

Re:Scary ... to say the least!

[terrymaster69]

Will I be extradited for having had sex with a 16-year-old (illegal in the US)?

You can be if you did in the US then left the country - depends on the situation and the extradition treaty of the country you fled to.

The idea is that he was committing crimes inside the United States - the fact that he resides in Australia means he needs to be extradited.

Re:Scary ... to say the least!

[myowntrueself]

"Will I be extradited for having had sex with a 16-year-old (illegal in the US)? How about drinking alcohol in public, which is illegal in many countries (Saudi Arabia for instance), or hell - buying alcohol at the tender age of 15 (illegal in the US)? How about having had sex before I was 18 (also illegal in the US)? Having had sex outside of marriage (probably illegal in Iran)? Having had anal sex while there was a third party in the sexual congress (illegal in the UK)."

I don't know about extradition, but theres *definitely* room for a great reality TV show in there!

Re:Scary ... to say the least!

[mixmasterjake]

Well, your examples don't really apply because you are talking about offenses that are committed and completely contained there in your own country. You're never going to be extradited for committing a crime like that because it has nothing to do with any other country whatsoever.

In the case of the Internet crime it is more complicated because how do you determine *where* the crime was committed? Was the crime committed there in that guy's bedroom, or was it committed on the computer system located on US soil? The DPJ is making the case that the crime was perpetrated in the US. The fact that the guy was physically sitting somewhere else - they are trying to say is irrelevant.

I wonder if that guy had never touched a server in the US - had done all of his warez activities on non-US servers, would he still be extradited?

Re:Scary ... to say the least!

[gnovos]

What next? Will I be extradited for having had sex with a 16-year-old (illegal in the US)? How about drinking alcohol in public, which is illegal in many countries (Saudi Arabia for instance), or hell - buying alcohol at the tender age of 15 (illegal in the US)? How about having had sex before I was 18 (also illegal in the US)? Having had sex outside of marriage (probably illegal in Iran)? Having had anal sex while there was a third party in the sexual congress (illegal in the UK).

Dude, that was an AWESOME weekend.

Re:Scary ... to say the least!

[the_weasel]

AFAIK he haven't ever been in US. How could he commit crimes there?

He made himself vulnerable to extradition by obtaining illegal access to computer hardware at an American university, and using that property to perform activity that is illegal both in the USA, and in his home coutry.

I suspect that if he had never made use of an American server, he would probably never have had a real problem. Even then - it sounds like it was a damn close thing and the Australian courts were not in complete agreement on the matter.

To use an example that is the closest parallel I can think of..there are certain medicines that are legal in the USA with a perscription - but illegal to use in Canada.

If I am a US citizen and I willingly and knowingly sell these medicines to Canadian citizens, then I have broken a law in Canada, and likely a trade agreement or treaty between the two countries. There are trade agreements and treaties between Canada and the US that cover how these issues are handled when they arise. Thats what diplomats do dfor a living.

In the interests of protecting trading interests with a foriegn country - you can bet that the US would seriously consider an extradition attempt by Canada in such a case as I have just described. It can be a fine line between medicine and traffiking.

Medium answer to a short question. I hope you found that informative.

Re:the joys of a wired world

[Anonymous Coward]

tried at the hauge

Under what laws? U.S. Laws? EU laws? Does the hague have to follow U.S. precedents? Do U.S. courts then in turn have to follow hague precedents that interpret U.S. laws? Are judges in the hague then subject to the same oversight as U.S. judges if their rulings on U.S. laws are abusive/incorrect, etc? Or at the least, can the U.S. congress pass a law to overturn a hague ruling? Or what if the hague ruling interprets U.S. Constitutional law? Are U.S. courts then bound by the hague-based interpretation of their constitution?

I'm not trying to flame ya. I'm just trying to imagine the unbelievable super-jumbo supreme sized can of worms you just described in one line....

Arrrr, they be hunting the pirates

[ryg0r]

Arrrg....

Tis a sad day when ye fellow pirate BanDiDo, now has t' be keel-hauled by these land lubbers, arrrg. And so close to the day too arrgg. Avast ye!

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/

If the tables were turned . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . this would probably been settled by a booting.

~~~

I fear the fall of the Empire.

[Dzimas]

Sooner or later, the backlash against the USA will be enormous. And it will be unplesant to behold. After all, most of the world's manufacturing ain't done there... I certainly can't think of one DVD player, TV set, MP3 player (iPod included) that is made in the US. Their cars aren't the best (Dodge Neon, anyone). All that's left is a few billion dollars of entertainment industry (I'm ignoring their incredibly advanced arms industry for a sec...), and if that falls... whew. No Britney, no Ben Stiller, no ER, and no money to fund the next round of incredibly dangerous Plutonium Nyborg-tipped missiles. And, what do you know, the Chinese ones will be 10x more accurate, 100x cheaper, and available in a variety of pastels.

Re:I fear the fall of the Empire.

[ZigiSamblak]

I find these remarks of American patriotism to be very ironic. In your eyes they are undoubtedly true, but to 99% of the world living outside of the US, we do not care much for the way of life and "freedom" the U.S. is trying to force upon us while disobeying just about every international treaty they ever commited to. Your "illness-fighting" drugs are mostly consumed by yourselves, most people here don't feel the need to take an average of 10 different medicine when they have nothing seriously wrong with them because they haven't been brainwashed by the pharmaceutical industry to feel inherently unhealthy (yet). The military inventions that you feel save thousand of lives take thousands of lives in places that never did you any harm and never threatened to do so, and they didn't ask for your help either but they did happen to have the second largest oil reserve in the world. And hundreds of countries were not much worse of then they have been since the U.S. economy started dominating the world, consuming 5 times as much per person as the rest of the developed world and producing 4 times as much polution. But thanks anyway, at least you mean it the right way and it's the thought that counts I guess... P.S. Why don't you try watching Fahrenheit 911, then watch it again. If your eyes haven't been opened then they never will.

Sad pirate.

[iamdrscience]

Yarrr... 'tis sad to be seein one o' me own kind be taken in. But that's one o' the hazards of the swashbucklin' life. This swig o' rum be for you, lad!

Very nasty precedent

[dbIII]

Extradition on copyright law, by the nation that keeps changing their copyright law to protect profits from Mickey Mouse! This leaves things open for ludicrous actions like prosecuting people in the project Gutenberg project outside the USA for putting things online which are decades out of copyright in their own countries.

Some time ago in Australia there was a spectacular fraudster that went to Spain to escape justice - a decade of extradition attempts got nowhere.

In my opinion, the members of the MPAA and other copyright lobbyists in the USA should have the decency to pay tax since they are consuming so much of the governments resources on this. All those big movies barely break even on paper - the IRS is expected to beleive that all of Hollywood is run as some sort of charity to the moviegoing public.

Criminals are stupid

[Neo-Rio-101]

I would have thought that these pirates encrypt their fileservers, so that even if their hardware gets confiscated.... the hard disks all appear to be blank.

I mean, they're so busy breaking other people's protections..... sheesh, you would have thought that they'd employ some themselves.

I guess criminals really are stupid.

Re:Criminals are stupid

[benna]

Its not fast enough when you are using gigabit servers that transfer entire entire movies in just seconds. It probobly would be a good idea to use encryption but it just won't happen. Some servers do use encryption on the ftp connections but that doesn't really work for fxp very well and it makes it take longer to connect to the servers so even that is rarely used. These groups essencially use speak easy security, if you know the right people you can get onto these servers, its not totally effective but its effective at spreading large amounts of warez all over the world very quickly.

Google-osity

[iamdrscience]

Search Google for " wares". It comes up saying "Did you mean: warez".

Hehe, my brother pointed that one out to me.

Re:Google-osity

[Da Twink Daddy]

I forget where I read it, but it turns out that google's spell-checking isn't based on any real dictionary at all. Instead, it's based on the number of occurances of the word in their indexed pages. I assume they are using something like double metaphone to match the "misspellings" (fewer occurances) with the "correct" spelling (most occurances).

American law != International law

[chrispyman]

Since it's quite likely that this guy was violating Australian copyright laws, though probably more leanant than any US ones, why does the US feel the need to punish him HERE??? Perhaps the more disturbing issue is will this case define the internet's legal jurisdiction to be that of the United States thus ignoring the world wide scope of the internet's audience?

Jurisdiction

[raisedbyrobots]

Age of consent is determined by state law, not federal law, so you'll have to wait for the individual states to start extradicting foreigners.

On the otherhand, if you were just trying to point out how you've had sex, then point taken.

What about Austrailia???

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are most of the posts here negatively directed at the US? After all, it was Austrailia that agreed to extradite this guy. Shouln't the negativity be directed there instead?

Oh no

[CrypticSpawn]

now I am going to be extradited to Singapore to be caned because I spit out my gum on U.S. soil!!! I am glad they don't know about my grafitti back in the day, I just might be double canned...

Re:Oh no

[the_riaa]

No, dumbass. Extradition is for when you commit a crime in one country [where the act is illegal], and either flee or reside in another country [where the act may or may not be illegal]. Spitting out gum is illegal in Singapore, but is not illegal in the United States. So if you spit out your gum in the U.S. nobody cares - you're just an asshole [find a trashcan!]. If you did it in Singapore [again, where the act is illegal] AND FLED THE COUNTRY [or if you somehow were able to spit your gun out from your house in America and it landed on the street in Singapore] - then you could be extradited FROM the United States TO Singapore pending an extradition request and hearing by the government of Singapore to be heard in a court of law in the United States. And only if the court approves the request may you be extradited.

I know you were trying to be funny, but you just sounded dumb.

Astonishing!

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia is giving up its own citizen for extradition by the US for an act committed on Australian soil? That's outright astonishing! And rather frightening. (Of course, we've got nothing to fear. The US would never remand over anybody for some hard questioning in a rogue state like Syria or anything like that!)

US v Griffiths

[Anonymous Coward]

I've just read the item about the extradition proceedings involving the above. The item is incorrect. All that has happened so far is that a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia has held that it is POSSIBLE for the Australian Government to extradite Griffiths to the US, if it chooses. If that decision is not reversed on any appeal, then the Australian Government (in the person of the Attorney-General) will decide whether to extradite Griffiths. If the Attorney-General decides to extradite (and sometimes A-Gs haven't, even though they had the power to do so) then Griffiths can challenge the lawfulness of that decision.

Re:US v Griffiths

[The Original Yama]

That's even worse. If it's left to the Attourney-General, it is guaranteed that Griffiths will be extradited. The current Australian government has a nasty track record of doing everything Washington tells them to do.

Behold the power of "Free Trade"

[JohnA]

I think if we Americans realized the power held by our non-elected, non-accountable "trade representatives", we would be absolutely appalled.

America's Free Trade representatives require so many concessions from foreign governments for the pleasure of a "free trade" agreement with the United States.

These government employees have a mandate to spread U.S. style laws across the world. The cost is, of course, the loss of any individuality possessed by participating states.

Regardless of your feelings about the current administration, you should closely scrutinize the actions of some of the most powerful people in the administrative branch... people who have no accountability or oversight.

Re:the joys of a wired world

[benna]

I'm not advocating trying this kind of crime at the hauge but if one was to do that I don't see why US law has anything to do with it. It would be international law that people would be tried under. I don't much like that idea though because it international law is farther from the people than national law. Its really quite simple. No extradition for crimes commited on Australian soil to the US. The example always given of somebody shooting a bullet across the boarder and killing someone does't work. Murder is in all likelyhood illegal on both sides of the boarder. If its not then there should be no extradition. If it is then the country that the person is in can try them because they pulled the trigger in that country. This same thing can apply to the internet.

A Worst Case Scenario

[Starji]

The real problem with this is that while he may have criminally infringed on copyrights in the US, he also did so everywhere there is internet access. Like it's been said, he's never been to the US, yet he is being tried under US law. What's to keep other countries across the world with similar copyright laws from trying him for his crimes. It's not like double-jeopordy exists everywhere, let alone US double-jeopordy. Worst case this could set a precedent that if you commit a crime on the internet, every country on earth could get a piece of you. So he goes to jail for a few years in the US, then say the UK wants to try him, then maybe Germany, or France, or Canada, or whoever. That's what I'm worried about.

Re:A Worst Case Scenario

[phorm]

It's not about where he criminally infringed so much as from whom the "piracy" took place though. I seriously doubt that the US would have intervened if it were a company without vested US interested that had been "infringed" upon.

what countries DON'T care about western copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason this guy is under so much fire is simple: He violated copyright in a massive way ("US$50 million" worth) and corporations want to send a message that this is not okay. They're right: Australia respects US copyright law, and has extradiction treaties that can theoretically, and in this case demonstrably, be brought to bear on an offender.
So my question is, what country does not? Surely there is a country which simply doesn't care about western copyright, and does not have a system of laws and treaties under which the copyright of another country can cause extradition.
Now, here is the key to satiating my relentless craving for bits and bytes: the violation of copyright exists in the REPRODUCTION or DISTRIBUTION of material protected against such acts except where authorized. It says nothing about owning copyright materials.

Have you noticed that it doesn't matter how many pirate DVD's or videos you have, it is the houses with a thousand BURNERS churning out the pirate goods that get raided? THIS IS THE LAW.

So, I figure I can go to a government in which 100% of American bits and bytes are in the public domain, pay the government-owned publishing house a modest fee, and return with 100,000 pages of everything I'd ever want to read, for example, for pennies on the gram-square-meter.

This is the same as when I buy a jazz CD from 1942 sources that in France is in the public domain. (As I understand it.)

The consumer is NOT LIABLE.

Okay, comments?

Practically a Human Rights Violation

[ortcutt]

Given the dangerous conditions in US Prisons, it's surprising that civilized countries are still willing to extradite people here.

Bugger.

[SanGrail]

Poor bastard.

I mean, he was a pathetic warez hacker, but I wouldn't want anyone to have to face the US 'justice' system.

I've had several friends who had utterly insane things happen to them in America, it's made me paranoid enough that I wouldn't even want to stop over there. I know there's plenty of places, people, and festivals I'd like to visit in America, so it can't be that bad - but it seems like foreigners, even english speaking, western world, acceptably 'caucasian' foreigners, often get treated like shit, especially by the authorities. Or maybe that's normal. I don't know.
I don't want to find out.

Re:Bugger.

[SanGrail]

The sorts of things that happened were:

A female friend of mine, who had an American ex-partner, and daughter with a dual US/NZ citizenship (I'm in NZ by the way), so she has quite a few friends in the US - was in America for a extended trip to take her daughter round to visit all her daughters relatives etc.
She was actually leaving the country, on her way to Canada, when she found out that her Visa, had expired two days beforehand.
She'd miscounted the days in the month.
She was taken to a detention centre, her daughter was taken away, she was told that she wouldn't be allowed to come back to NZ, that she'd be put in jail, and that her daughter would be put in foster care. She was made to wait for 3/4 hour when she said she needed to go toilet, she was harassed and interrogated for hours, there were people in there who'd been there for months, and she was terrified of becoming one of them. She ended up only being held for about a day, but was made to sign release forms saying that she agreed to any psychological or physical tests they wished until she left the country (which they wouldn't let her do for a week?!?) and she's been banned from the US for 10 years.
She's just a normal person and a mother, and understandably, she's been really traumatised since she got back, as she'd never had any problems when she'd been to the US before, and she's now scared about sending her daughter over for visits.
I've had people not think there's anything strange about that seeing as "she stuffed up her visa, so it's her fault", but personally, I think that's bloody awful treatment.

Another, is the brother of a former land-lady of mine. He's currently in a US prison, as far as I can tell, he was an idiot, but he shouldn't be serving the sentence he is, especially not in a US prison (sorry, but the US does have a horrific record). He was stupid enough to be drunk with the wrong people, but from there on, he was basically in the wrong place, at the wrong time. He got charged with robbery of a convenience store - which he didn't actually do. But he was in prison, in a foreign country, and he just wanted to go home - and the prosecutor made a deal that if he just pleaded guilty for that crime, right away, they'd extradite him to NZ to serve the sentence. He just wanted to get out of a US prison, and back home, even if that meant serving time in a NZ prison, rather than being stuck there while they had the trial - and the prosecutor was making noises that he'd definately be spending *some* time in jail, if he didn't go along with it.
The prosecutor lied. He pled guilty, and he wasn't extradited.
So, he was *definately* an idiot there for agreeing to that, but I can understand the motivation.
And now he's serving time in a US prison, for something he was not guilty of.

I also know people who were in America for short-term IT work contracts, and when they told people who asked, that no, they *weren't* actually waiting for a green card, and they were going home afterwards, they had several people get angry and/or abuse them for "not thinking the US was good enough for them". Or just look them incredulously. That's kind of weird.
Overall, they had a good time though.

Oh.
And I know people who got in trouble for crossing the road (I thought they were joking at first). In NZ, you're allowed to cross the road if there's no cars, and you're not too close to a pedestrian crossing. I don't know what it is in the US, but it was night time, there were no cars, and they got hassled by cops, but that wasn't too serious.

The drivers license is probably a good idea. The last ones were additionally hassled because they didn't have their passports on them.

Anyway, I'm sure it's not that bad. Stuff has just been strange in the last few years, and from my perspective here in NZ, the US has just been getting weirder. I think I'm more paranoid just because I've been hearing succesively scarier stories over the past few years, but I am hoping things will get better for you all, and also the people visiting there, sometime soon (or at least stop getting worse - ie all the scary 'terrorist' laws you've had).

So yeah, I'm sure it's not that bad, but I'd still be ultra-paranoid if I was visiting the US.

Next thing you know

[dtfinch]

I'll be extradited from the US to China for violating their censorship laws.

what's the big deal?

[flacco]

the potential penalty is.

as RMS succinctly put it at a presentation i attended several months ago: in the US, you can now be sent to prison to be raped for sharing software.

this fact short-circuits any rational discussion one might have about jurisdiction, extradition, etc.

Well, let me try to explain it

[Sycraft-fu]

The answer to your questions is no. Here's why:

First off, for any of this to happen, there needs to be an extradition treaty between the countries. This means that they mutually agree on the things for which a person can and cannot be extradited to stand trial. Most of the nations you are talking about the US (and likely whatever nation you reside in) does NOT have an extradition treaty with. Even so, most of these aren't offences allowed for extradition under treaties.

So, even in the event that the offence you are talking about is one for which you can be extradited, it needs to be commited against their citizens, in their country. What you do to other citizens of your country is your bussiness. Other countries can't extradite you for that.

So, what the US is claiming here was that the warezing was done to US citizens (or corperations rather, but same basic thing when it comes to extradition law) in the US. How you might ask? Well take a similar situation:

Suppose some asshat in the US decides to start scamming Aussies out of their money. They run a scam like the 419 scams where they just grab the money and go. So the AU PD manages to track down said Asshat in the US, and collect a good amount of evidence proving he's doing it. They then file for extradition. Why? Well even though the asshat is in the US, his crimes are against Australian citizens, in Australia. He's guilty under AU law, and thus should be tried there.

Now cases of software copying are a little tricker, given the nature of the Internet. Did it really happen to US citizens (or coperations) in the US? Well, that is a matter for the Australian courts to decide, and that's what happened. The lower court decided no, it wasn't and thus no extradition. The US appealed, and the higher court has decided that yes, in fact the crime was against a US entity in the US so the extradition will be permitted.

With the Internet, things get a little unclear where jurisdication line lie, and I imagine in 5-10 years we may see some new treaties around this. However as a general rule when you are dealing with matter in your own country, no other country has any jursidiction over them. When you do something in another country, even if by proxy, you can potentially be held liable under that country's law.

Pray for a Labor Victory

[ortcutt]

Let's all hope that Australian Labor Party wins the coming election and kicks out this lap-dog Howard government.

Re:Extradition

[dbIII]

Maybe our governments acction is because we have a election comming up in october. but anyway maybe the australian government it trying to "Bribe" the US gov to get him back.

Very unlikely.

The Australian judiciary is independant enough to really piss off the Australian government - so I doubt this is the case. We are talking about a government of which members fabricated charges of homosexual pedaphillia in a government car against a supreme court judge that they didn't like - claims which fell apart very quickly under scrutiny.

We don't have elected judges here. Supreme court judges are appointed by the government of the day, but usually stay in the post longer than the government that appoints them and it's successor - by which time they often quite critical of members of the party that appointed them in the first place.

The David Hicks backflip is because an election is occuring in a few weeks, and it is the cheap politics of saying something without doing anything (nothing will be done within five weeks, and if they get back in it won't matter if anything is done at all) - similar to other stupid stunts this week like telling the Russians we can send Australian terrorist experts to show them how it is all done.

Section Name Change Suggestion

[mefus]

"Your Rights Online" should be "Your Rights On the Line"

This is why...

[Numen]

Why?... lets try a scenario and see how you feel about it.

Your 18 year old daughter (or sister) has been priating software amongst his friends in college to make spare cash.

Some of the software he's pirating it produced in the UK, and the UK want to extradite him to stand trial there.

How do you feel about it now?

Hicks and Habib

[ozmanjusri]

It seems somewhat ironic that the US is so keen to extradite this fellow for what we hope is a fair trial, but are not prepared to return David Hicks or Mamdouh Habib to Autralia or to try them in a civilian court.

what a great victory!

[sofar]

No we can finallay extradite all those US-based spammers and sue them to sh*t from europe, africa and asia!!!!

Re:Your Rights Online and Offline

[sofar]

Contrary to what you think international law does not exist. Merely extradition agreements and gentlemens agreements, often backed up by large groups of lobbyists and large corporate organisations that are the only ones that transcend borders and thus have interests in such agreements.

The only real exception is the EUROPEAN UNION, which has laws that govern parts or ALL 25 MEMBER STATES. The rest of the international laws can be erased with a pencil if anyone wants to.

Look before you leap !

[e_AltF4]

Let's send that W4R3Z H4X0R to US jail then ...

I would expect some not so nice consequences in international relations

- having to send all Guantanamo staff and the US military commanders to Afghanistan, GB, Iran or Iraq for kidnapping, torture, illegal imprisonment etc. to stand trial according to local laws

- extradition request from china, russia, saudi arabia ... for "grasing some palms" to get that big power plant / communications / oil contract - let the CEO come and face a chinese court or Shari'ah (Islamic Law)

You can't expect the world to respect YOUR laws, but constantly ignore THEIRS - can you ?

To take this to its logical conclusion

[mattgorle]

Why not extradite and imprison the entire city of Amsterdam? Remember to pay attention to coffee houses.

Re:what countries DON'T care about western copyrig

[Afty0r]

So, I figure I can go to a government in which 100% of American bits and bytes are in the public domain, pay the government-owned publishing house a modest fee, and return with 100,000 pages of everything I'd ever want to read

Not likely legal (depends on your jurisdiction).
I live in the UK (which has fairly liberal copyright regs/enforcement by US standards) and carried out research last year into doing reproduction and distribution of old materials (like, decades old, but still not PD in the UK) in an African country which did not have particularly strong or long lasting IP laws.
Turns out it is also illegal to *import* these materials into the UK - whether for personal use or not, they will be confiscated at the airport/port, or if you sneak them in, you can be prosecuted.

Empires are such

[quadormortis]

It is clear: australia has given up one of the basic pillar of its sovereignity: the ultimate right of judgment on its territory. That was the basic right of kings and the basic of right of any form of state afterwards. Obviously, US tries to wash away a very important thing: the borders of the countries and thus the territories of sovereignity by referring to the Internet. It might look as a small thing, but you must consider that territory of sovereignity holds a very special importace and it is a very sensitive area. The ultimate power over a territory is the basic of all rules and laws (even back in the nature) Unfortunately it is obvious that US is doing this not for making the world a better place and making a sci-fi dream true, but for extending its power (and its companies' power) to other countries. I am not that suprised, rather sorrowful. A dream of the XX. century indepedent, soveriegn and equal nations has died. The UN failed. The history continues as it used to be for millenia. It is a bit ironic to see how unprepared your "western world" was to the simple fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the only remaining superpower will behave exactly as superpowers tend to behave: they have the tendency to rule as much of the world as possible and claim as much of others' sovereignty as possible. Here in eastern europe we have seen the soviet (russian) arrogance and how our governments behaved like pet dogs of the soviet communist party (and their secretery general). And you might think it was a terrible dictatorship here. Not as bad as you might think. Just as you might expect from a "colony" of a big empire. You are not allowed to question the empire: that's all. US didn't behave like that at that time, because of PR reasons. At that time the western world had to show that they system is inherently better than the soviet communist crap. And it was at that time. How much we admired the freedom of the western world. And the idea of the _really_ free nations. Now the communists have gone. There is no real danger of (lucrative) communist ideology to conquer the world. Now your western system and the western superpower can start to show its real color. The saddest thing is that it is not necessary evil: it it just the logic of empires. It seems that - unfortunately - the democratic-capitalist western system is not inherently protected against bad governments and arrogant empires. It's just suprising to see how surprised you are that there is nothing new in history. Arrogant, militant governments and empires turn up from time to time to annouce "pax romana" (and "lex romana" obviously) of the new age. By the way, I am sure this decision was completely "legal". Legal systems are always enforced in a way how the current political systems want them to be used. Formally, they are always perfect.

Software Guerilla Warfare

[Mulletproof]

I suspect this might have something to do with it--

Griffiths has been charged in the US with conspiracy to infringe copyright and copyright infringement, for reproducing without authority and distributing software protected by copyright on the internet. The US alleges that Griffiths was the ringleader of an internet group called DrinkorDie which allegedly worked from a computer network at Boston's Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Griffiths helped to control access to the network, though it is not alleged that he made money from his activities."

You're right. The bullet analogy doesn't work. We're talking more along the lines of Guerillas from Kazookiestan crossing the boarder, hijacking a US vehical, commiting a crime against US property on US soil then running back to their HQ. The fact that it was all virtual doesn't make the analogy any less valid. Every single element of the crime- save the originating computer -was commited by hijacking US property to illegally obtain US goods or commit crimes on US ground.

Personally, I'm seeing a very strong case for the US. In the end though, it really doesn't matter who gets him to me. Hackers aren't exactly in short supply. i'm sure they'll find another one.

The Empire is history

[Oddly_Drac]

" The US is the major innovator and inventor in the world."

You're American, aren't you?

"Hundreds of countries livelihood is entirely dependent on the ongoing success of our economy."

Mainly Columbia and some sections of Mexico, but mostly where the world has resisted the economic bullying of the US they're getting along fine. Go check out your balance of trade and let us know if it's an import or export deficit.

"Our illness-fighting drugs are the lifeblood of many developing nations."

But a lot more expensive than the unlicensed copies you'll find _actually_ being used in the developing nations.

"Our military inventions save the lives of thousands of lives everytime our soldiers go into the field."

As long as you're American and on that battlefield, then you might be okay, but don't assume that a dearth of statistics on friendly fire and civilian casualties means that there weren't any. You should check out the International Red Cross for some pertinent statistics that suggest that the US has actually caused more collateral damage than is entirely acceptable under the Geneva Convention.

"The list is too long"

List? I thought this was a vague cheerlead.

"Our economic base is slowly deteriorating from the "producer" of worldwide products"

Do give over. You economic base is crippling itself through the balkanisation of intellectual property, the pending threat of doing *something* about the global warming problem now that the administration has come clean, the constant clamouring for cheap goods for a decadent society and the rapidly aging society that will probably kill the US through demands for cheap, available medicare and a consistent quality of life. Democracy has both upsides and downsides; one of the downsides is the people are soft, fat and lazy. After a while a five metre killzone is going to do you no good if you can't afford to buy them.

Now generally you might consider this 'anti-american'. It's actually 'anti-jingoist' because the one thing I cannot stand is someone that tries to promote a view of something that is so far from the truth as to require a backing soundtrack and some inspirational graphics. There's a planet out there that is hungry and starving, and to be frank we don't want America to come in and save us. We want America to sort out your own mess and leave us all alone.

The trouble is that would mean the US couldn't manipulate markets, and that's fundamentally the reason for invading developing countries.

Re:The Empire is history

[bstarrfield]

As an American, I have to say I agree with your points. I think the situation is actually far worse:

• The economy is loaded with debt - both consumer and governmental - on an incredible scale.
• The US dollar is due to collapse, dramatically lowering the standard of living for most Americans.
• Our dependance on petroleum continues to increase.
• Immigration continues to occur at the rate of 2 million people per year, despite massive unemployment among minorities. When will our minorities actually realize that they have little or no hope of a better future?
• Our military is growing, consuming more and more resources and people.
• Income inequality is mammoth and increasing. The middle class - key to any democracy - is being squeezed to oblivion.
• Our appointed president will likely win the next election through slandering his opponent, bringing four more years of secrecy and gifts to corporations.
• The religious right has continued a century-old campaign to eradicate evolution in the classroom;

I think the best thing for America would be to have the Empire fall - concentrate on what made our country great, not attempting to conquer the world. Our arrogance, hubris, is the key to our destruction. And I think it's coming much faster than most people realize.

Extradition treaties 101

[JaredOfEuropa]

Suddenly, somebody from France extradites you for attempting to sell "military munitions to civil personnel". But wait a minute... it's not illegal to own that in the US! But, it is/was being sold to people IN FRANCE!

Most extradition treaties work like this: you can only be extradited for things that are illegal in both countries. My country's treaty with the US has some additional provisions, such as exclusion of stuff that is punished much harder in the US, and exemption of criminals who are likely to face the death penalty in the US. These treaties work like this for the situation you brought up.

Unless I miss my guess, warezing (sp) is a crime in Australia as well, and this guy can be extradited.

Re:the joys of a wired world

[jetmarc]

> ... then the country that the person is in can try them because they pulled
> the trigger in that country. This same thing can apply to the internet.

But then the question remains: WHERE is an internet crime committed?

a) in country where the content was created and/or hosted? (here: australia)

or

b) in the country where the content is received and viewed? (here: US, among others)

If you go with b), one could arbitrarily choose any country at wish. Clever
delinquents could even go one step further:

1) commit horrible internet crime
2) choose country with weak and light law
3) let someone from this country view content
4) get prosecuted for it in that country
5) dont get prosecuted in any other country (nor home country, nor US) anymore,
because one cant be prosecuted twice for the same crime

-> get away cheap with horrible internet crime

its all about the money...

[iamrob]

Essentially its about money. I would assume it comes down to the fact that proported 'losses' (never mind if the software would have been purchased legally anyway) are mostly from US owned / based companies.

Thus, Australia, ever so ready to co-operate with said world superpower for strategic and financial incentives may extradite him for an 'appropriate trial' ie. another instance (RIAAesque) of big business run America making examples of pirates.

The thing that gets me is that this attempt at extradition is a direct comment on either inability to appropriately deal with this in our own legal system, or the fact that the US will benefit more from prosecution on their own shores, with their own media.

Irony

[Sophrosyne]

It's kind-of Ironic that Britain used to send their criminals to Australia... now the United States is taking the criminals for themselves...

Re:the joys of a wired world

[smchris]

Extradition should only be used for really serious offenses -- like software piracy.

Of course, the U.S. refused extradition of Kissinger for war crimes.

Looks like France may request extradition of Cheney for screwing not just the U.S. taxpayer but the rest of the world as well with the Halliburten money funnel. Of course, that will be denied as well.

Maybe software pirates need lobbyists?

Partial victory - no order for legal costs

[indaba]

At least he didn't have to pay the other side's legal costs.

"I have come to the view that ... Mr Griffiths ought not be deterred from defending the application by the risk of a potential costs order against him.

Actual judgement here : http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/ 2004/879.html

This is in itself an important precedent that will be of benefit to any future Mr Griffith's.

On a different point, why is this considered news ? Justice Jacobson handed down his descion two months ago on July 7th !

What about war crimes?

[benj_e]

What about the idea that some European countries have about trying someone for crimes commited in another country? Seems like the same principle.