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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

...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

[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

[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.

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....

[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.....

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!

[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!

[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.

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.

Google-osity

[iamdrscience]

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

Hehe, my brother pointed that one out to me.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Section Name Change Suggestion

[mefus]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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