Slashdot Mirror
Australian Extradited For Breaking US Law At Home
An anonymous reader sends us a link to a report in The Age about an Australian resident, who had never set foot in the US and broke US intellectual-property laws in Australia, being extradited to the US to face trial. Hew Raymond Griffiths pleaded guilty in Virginia to overseeing all aspects of the operation of the group Drink Or Die, which cracked copy-protected software and media products and distributed them for free. He faces up to 10 years in a US jail and half a million dollars in fines.
Why is this news? Sounds to me like he broke a US law that the AU has an equivalent law about, and the us wants him to be on trial here first. Plus the AU has agreements with the US to comply. Sounds like SOP to me.
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
That's not the drum of revolution, it's the contented monotony of suburban life.
Most countries have extradition treaties, meaning they've specifically agreed to send citizens to foreign countries to face prosecution if a formal request is made. You actually want it this way. Wouldn't be much fun if criminals could commit crimes with impunity just because they weren't physically in a country. Now I'm not saying software piracy should be one of those crimes, but let's be real here. What if there was an organized crime boss, living in the US, ordering the deaths of Australian citizens? Would you want the US to extradite him to face justice or would you want them to say "Well he wasn't committing any crimes here, and since he's not in Australia you can't have him, sorry."
Since we don't want criminals using national borders to shield themselves, a large number of nations have extradition treaties with each other. There are restrictions on those treaties, for example Canada can refuse to extradite in cases where the person would face the death penalty, but in general if it is a legit request, the extradition is honoured.
Now, the guy violated copyright law - Australian copyright law, as mentioned in TFA, However, since the unlawful act was carried out in Australia, I have no idea why he can't be sentenced there. The US argument is presumably that the copyright owners are in the US, but so what? If I injure a German person while he visits France, should I be extradited to Germany from France? This whole issue just seems bizarre.
Why is this news?
Perhaps the fact that he isn't under US jurisdiction?
He most certainly is under US jurisdiction. We own the Australian government, which means we own Australia, which means we own your ass. Break our laws and we'll slam you in our prisons, because we can, and it makes us money to do so.
Welcome to the new world order, Bush (Sr., Jr.) and Clinton style.
Until Australia (and, for that matter, the UK) learns to stand up to the world's biggest bully (what to my immense shame is what my country, the United States, has become), they and their people will be under our jurisdiction, subject to our laws on their own soil, and with no protection from their own governments. Just like the soviet satellite states of the last century, we'll let you wave your own flags and call yourselves whatever you like, but fuck with us and our cash flow, and we'll slam you into our gulag.
You want this to not be the case? Then elect and demand a government with some backbone that will tell the United States exactly where it can get off.
... the war on terror made this extradition a lot easier?
Why, yes! I AM new here.
Yet again a post comparing copyright infringement to pedophilia or murder.... /sigh
And that kids is how I met your mother.
According to TFA, the average imprisonment term is less than that of copyright infringement. Women being considered 2nd class to men would be the only way to explain how something that hurts an entity (corporate or personal) financially has a greater punishment than something that hurts primarily women physically, mentally, and for a long time.
(And me before you get all technical on me, I did say primarily women, but men can be raped as well...)
This message brought to you by Jack Schitt's Previously Shat Shit
Thankfully we still have some sanity here in NZ. Although there was perhaps some keenness to hitch up withAustralia in the 1980s and 1990s, less kiwis think thta way now.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Globalization is the word of the day .. Globalization is the theory of the day.
the GlobalJail may be the first real implementation.
"There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
...dummy /sarcasm
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Hrngh. No.
The guy has been accused of violating copyright law by certain people in the US. He has not been convicted. The question of his guilt has not even been examined by a court. He has been extradited not for violating copyright law, but for being accused of violating copyright law.
If somebody in the US accused you of violating copyright law, you can be extradited too. It does not matter whether you did it. The US extradition treaties do not operate on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", they operate on the principle of "everybody is guilty" - proof is not required, requested, or considered. A bureaucrat signs a form and you get shipped into a US jail. (At their option, this can be a US jail that isn't located on US soil, like Gitmo, so they aren't obliged to ever examine whether you are guilty of anything)
Well actually they do, but call it "extraordinary rendition" instead.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Yeah,
Well as a UK Citizen, we signed an agreement that allowed USUK extradition.
However, the US hasn't, and won't sign their half !!!
In contract-law speak, this is called being 'screwed over'.
Blair (et al.) doesn't have the balls to revoke our ratification, despite the fact that several high-profile extradition cases have gone to the high court, and several high profile US->UK cases are just piling up, e.g. US servicemen causing in a large proportion of UK military deaths and casualties in Iraq/Afghanistan.
To quote one US airman, who had just strafed and killed solders in a UK convoy - "Man, we're going to jail.". But luckily, US laws only apply when/where they say it does.
...that Australia no longer has genuine national sovereignty distinct from America. We haven't been our own people culturally or economically since the 80s, and the free trade agreement coupled with Howard's ongoing earnestness to subjugate himself to the American government as much as possible are just more nails in the coffin.
:(
The fools who were so adamant for Australia's split with the English monarchy now failed to realise one crucial detail; Australia's genuine independence is never going to happen. If we split with England entirely, America will rush in to fill the void before anyone can blink.
Welcome to the 51st state.
Before you hit the flamebait button, please listen: The issue here is more widespread than you think. In this case they were stealing software, breaking the anti-piracy measures and redistributing it. What about hacking a computer in another country, stealing credit cards and selling the cards or charging them? What about training radicals to hop onto planes and commit crimes in other countries? What about private groups of citizens launching rockets across the border into neighboring countries? In what jurisdiction does the crime occur? What if the other government refuses to prosecute? Should it escalate to a national or international conflict?
The fundamental questions is, what do you do when someone from another country harms your citizens or destroys their property? Criminals used run for the state or country border to avoid prosecution. No they just play in the fuzzy areas of national sovereignty. Many of the conflicts in the world follow this pattern. In this case Australia decided to hand the criminal over the the US for prosecution. Maybe they are trying to send a message to criminals hiding behind these gray areas of sovereignty.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Someone needs to ask for the extradition of your president and our prime minister for crimes against humanity - starting illegal wars, killing 10,000s of civilian non-combatants, detention without trial and lots more bad things.
Obviously they are not illegal in the USA or the UK because they say so, but there are lots of places where this sort of behaviour is against the rules. If such extraditions are not a good thing, perhaps someone should say why mass murder is less important than intellectual "property".
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
To extend the situation...a lot of things that Americans do daily are illegal in other countries (especially muslim countries), and carry severe penalties (like stoning to death for having sex with someone you're not married to, for instance)...would you be happy for US citizens to be deported to those countries to face those punishments for 'crimes' committed in the US?
I've been marked as flamebait often for lot less. One point to make - /. moderators are from US mainly, and therefore moderation most likely will favor US citizens and opinions (aka it is BIASED).
If Raymond had broken U.S. law while in the U.S. then I would have no problem with this extradition. When you travel to another country you must abide by its laws. This was not the case however. This extradition sets the precedent of a citizen of a sovereign nation committing a crime on the soil of his own nation and being extradited and tried according to the laws of a foreign nation.
What is wrong with this? What's wrong is wrong, right? Well, the problem is that, in a democracy, citizens need to have a say in how they are governed. The law is not an absolute and universal code. It is there to serve the people, and the people are therefore responsible for writing the laws they are governed by. With these extraditions, suddenly citizens can be governed by laws they had no say or representation in writing.
If these extraditions are allowed to continue, citizens may face penalties for things that are legal in their own country, or penalties far harsher than their country would normally permit. As a ridiculous example, say that the U.S. signed such an extradition treaty with an asian nation where drug running was punishable by death. (Yes, this example is ridiculous because, as others have pointed out, the U.S. tends to be "more equal" than other nations in this sort of treaty.) Say that a U.S. citizen who never left U.S. soil masterminded a drug ring which was responsible for sending large ammounts of drugs to this asian country, so that asian country requested his extradition, got it, tried him, and executed him. (Again, I admit this example is ridiculous. I merely use it to convey the principle of my argument.)
This extradition sets a dangerous precedent, and I sincerely hope that the Australian government comes to its senses before it's too late. Protecting IP just isn't worth this kind of legal fascism.
Unfortunately, a few too many Australians. 40% of them voted for him directly, and another 6% for the national party with which they have a formal alliance. Due to the allocation of preferences this allowed them to ultimately win power. But you could not say that the majority of voters directly voted for him at the last election.
It certainly looks like alot less are going to vote for him now for our unconditional support in invading Iraq. The disaster that Iraq has proven to be wasn't so evident in 2004 at the last election, at least to the general public.
Its not like that many Australian companies have even had sweetheart deals with Iraq - so its hard to see even the commercial gain for the venture for Australia.
Whilst I think that most Australians (myself included) would support the US in any war or real threat to US soil, few of us really want to go invading other countries without good reason. One of the major holidays in Australia, ANZAC day, reminds us yearly of the horrors of unnecessary wars. The words we repeat at the end of the dawn service is "Lest we forget". It reflects the Australian ethos that war is a bad thing, and we should remember this. Sadly, it would seem that John Howard did forget the horror of war when he chose to support the invasion of Iraq.
Anyway, for the majority of Australians who didn't actually vote for John Howard at the last election, I think we are entitled to grumble a little.
But I certainly agree with you that we have no right to blame the US for our mistakes. Including John Howard. That was all our own doing.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
Personally, I moderate on the merits of the post. I have stopped correcting spelling/grammar errors by followup comment as I've discovered that English is not the first language of many posters, although their point of view is as valid as mine. Please don't be misled by the fraction of slashdotters who are loud-mouthed assholes and swagger around like ultra-patriots. Since this is supposedly a free nation, all of us must suffer the inelegant employment of that freedom by some in order to justify our own. I repeat, we are not a monolithic nation, but I concede it could look that way from afar...
"The guy has been accused of violating copyright law by certain people in the US. He has not been convicted. The question of his guilt has not even been examined by a court. He has been extradited not for violating copyright law, but for being accused of violating copyright law."
FTFA: "...Griffiths, 44, is in a Virginia cell, facing up to 10 years in an American prison after a guilty plea late last month...."
This means the "accused" admitted he was wrong. Therefore, in the eyes of the law, his "question of guilt" has been examined by a court. Actually, there is not even a question of guilt, but an admission of guilt. He convicted himself in court. No need for the whole process. How many more times do I have to say he's guilty as examined by a court. A judge even has the chance to look at the facts of the case with a guilty plea and say "there's no case here, dismissed." But, that is not happening here because what occurred is legal in the US, Australia, and international law.
Better check your facts next time. Oh, wait; this is Slashdot.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
I think some people may be missing the point.
Griffiths has admitted to copyright infringement, which is criminal in both USA and Australia (and almost all other countries). It doesn't matter that the victim of the crime lives in another country; imagine if you could send threatening letters or bombs to someone, and get away with it just because the victim lives outside your country's jurisdiction. As long as you commit the act while being within the borders of your country, and the act is criminal, you could and should be put on trial.
The weird part is putting Griffiths on trial in USA instead of Australia. The act has been perpetrated on Australian soil by an Australian citizen, so Australian law and Australian courts should apply. Only the victim lives in USA.
I suspect this is yet another symptom of the hübris of US-American government: they think their rules should apply to everyone else. If a US citizen commits a crime against someone in a foreign country, he is put on trial in USA. If a foreign citizen commits a crime against someone in the USA, the US government wants to put him on trial in USA too. US government believes it should have the jurisdiction over any crime that is committed in USA, *or* by a US citizen, *or* against a US citizen, even though it conflicts with every other country's right to do the same.
And, of course, it's also a symptom of the lack of backbone of the rest of the world.
Not really. From outside the US I see a bunch of right-wingers arguing with another bunch of right-wingers about how far to the right the most acceptable form of government is. Now if you actually had a party that was on the left, then you might be able to call the voting public polarized, but until then...
Bob
Listen to my latest album here
As for extradition, yes it pretty much only works one way. The U.S. only follows the law when it benefits the U.S. That's why we use "international law, the UN, and international courts to bully countries like Iraq, North Korea, and Iran--then ignore them completely when they call *US* to task.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
There's a difference between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. Under the Roman Republic, subject peoples were often ruthlessly exploited by Roman businessmen but the establishment of the Principate under Augustus brought the worst excesses to an end. The Roman Empire was a very benign superpower. The Romans (until the rise of Christianity) was a pluralist society that embraced all the cultures within its borders. Minorities (except Christians) were allowed to practice their beliefs without persecution as long as no-one was injured in the process. In most cases conquered nations were allowed to keep their own form of government, customs and legal systems with the understanding that Roman Law superceded local laws. As the oft quoted lines from Life of Brian go "Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?" - Brought peace. Wherever the US goes, they rarely bring peace with them. They do bring, however, exploitative and ruthless businessmen.
Travelling forward in time at a rate of 1 second per second.
Since when did Australia get annexed to the USA ? As a Canadian I'm a bit jealous (psych!)
:P He's probably responsible for some heavy-duty stuff in the world of copyright law. On the other hand, what the hell kind of pansy-ass government ships off their own criminal to the states ? If Australia wants to prosecute their citizen, go nuts! If they don't, then leave him be. That's probably why he lives there in the first place. The internet makes it easy to participate in global activities, but so does the telephone and snail mail.
I'm divided on this issue. For one, the accused is a lead member of what was one of the largest software pirate groups in the world, which is pretty crazy compared to the buddy-trading we used to do in the 80's and 90's
I can't lie, I want to see this guy walk free, on principle. World leaders want to go on having their separate countries, distinct law systems and economic boundaries... well they have to go all the way! I don't think it's reasonable to open the borders whenever some high-ranking official deems it "necessary", but keep them closed for everything else. If Australia wants to be USA's sock puppet, they might as well become the 51st state and enjoy ALL the benefits of being part of the USA, including their foreign policy.
"G'day mate! I'm Canajun!"
-Billco, Fnarg.com
"If you simply note our last two Presidential elections, you'll see that we are as polarized as it gets..."
Sure, until you notice the fact that in the US 'left' politicians hold similar positions on contemporary political topics to those held by centrist politicians in most other nations. As for 'right' and 'far right' candidates....well, in most other countries they would most likely be locked up for being a public menace.
Sure, Americans are pretty polarized. But political opinion in the US appears to occupy only one half of the political spectrum.
To demonstrate how har it is to reverse, the US started down this path with "The New Deal" and are still on it. Read up on how FDR coerced (a particular membr of) the Supreme Court by threatenting to expand it until he got enough people on it to agree with him. Then note how the court's decisions on what was unconstitutional abruptly reversed and started expanding government.
Democracy is incompatible with freedom and liberty.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
As an American, I agree with you, but for reasons having nothing to do with prison rape (which, incidentally, happens far more in state prisons than in federal prisons, and rarely if ever in the "club fed" type of minimum security prison to which a copyright offender would typically be sent).
My objection to this is over the simple fact that whatever crime(s) he may have committed were committed in Australia, so whether or not he should go to prison, and where and for how long, or even whether he should be arrested and tried, is purely a matter for the Australian government to decide. Extraditing him is ludicrous.
This is very different than, say, picking some terrorist up on the battlefield, finding he's an Australian citizen, and remanding him to the Australian government to serve his sentence in Australia after being convicted and sentenced. If that guy, who is a far worse criminal than a copyright offender, can serve his sentence in Australia, the accused in the present case should most certainly not be extradited at all.
Has the Australian government lost all concept of national sovereignty?
If you vote for a party or candidate that does not enter office, how has your vote counted at all? How is it any different from people that throw away their vote by not voting?
I dont vote. Why? Because the two big parties here (they constantly hover at ~45% and ~35% in polls) do exactly the same thing when they get elected - over and over again for the last 85 years or so. The remaining ~20% or so have zero power, and when they go into coalition always tow the majority line. How is that democracy? How is that worth voting for when you disagree totally with the 80% do and also quite a bit with what the remaining 20% do? 99% of politicians here are in it for the money. The remaining 1% are in it to get something done - and they soon realise they are wasting their time. Who would you vote for?
Feel free to play "guess the country" if you dont wish to discuss politics. That usually far more fun in fact.
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.