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.
Can someone point out a few cases where the news was somewhere along the lines of "American Extradited For Breaking [fill in foreign country] Law At Home" or does this business only work one way?
The Aus government is working it's way to being a U.S. state.
We are making our military hardware compatible with theirs, we are fighting in stupid profit based wars that go against the international community with them.
They don't hand over their war criminals for international trial, and now they expect everyone around the world to respect their laws.
Americas international standing is reducing every day. And judging by the media driven fear of the outside they are cultivating and the laughable democratic system and a retard for a president, they are well on the way to being the worst totalitarian state out there.
We have the names of U.S states and capitals rammed down our necks by countless TV shows and movies and they don't even know we have states.
I hope Iran/China/N. Korea gets some US citizens extradited too as part of this new high in international cooperation.
Not exactly, you signed up to the EU Extradited extradition which permits extradition for crimes including computer crimes (e.g. breaking DRM, no kidding). However that only applies to within the EU. But if the US can get a puppet government (e.g. Blairville) to issue a warrant for anyone in Europe, they can then extradite using the UK to US expedited extradition treaty.
o n_hacker/
There's no limits on re-extradition.
Worse, there is no judicial check in the UK, that the reasons given for the extradition, really complies with the requirements for extraditing. This is why a McKinnon (who broke US PCs into had a look around and left) is being accused of doing $5000 damage to each PC, in order for it to be a Federal crime and hence extraditable. The extradition mechanism doesn't let a UK judge check it.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/25/extraditi
In theory they could make any allegation against any UK citizen and get them extradited (kidnapped in effect) and the court could do nothing.
[rant]F***ing Blair. We elected a leader, and he became a Bush follower and sold us out. I'll piss on his grave when he dies for the damage he's done to the UK sovereignty. [/rant]
Good thought. There's a few directions you can go with this.
What about an American Journalist being extradited to China for criticising the government there.
What about being extradicted to a non-secular country for saying something against their religion.
But we are talking IP. What about an Indian being extradited to Sweden for copying IKEA furniture. Even though there are no IKEA stores in India. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 006/02/12/MNG41H6PEF1.DTL.
Someones crossed a line here, but then many lines have been crossed in this war of IP holders vs the people.
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
"Well the US is not the World Police".
Many Americans believe that it is. But only in the sense that anyone, living anywhere in the world, should be subject to US justice for breaking US laws. Lesser breeds are welcome to cheat, rob, assault, murder, and torture one another - indeed, this is often positively encouraged - as long as no American loses out in the process.
There are two logically distinct and incompatible positions being confused here.
1. The USA is the world's most progressive nation, in the sense that it is the first and best democracy, the country in which the rule of law is most clearly supreme, and generally the most virtuous. Therefore it has a moral right, or even an obligation, to lead others towards the light (at least, those of them who survive the trip).
2. The USA is the world's most powerful nation, armed with weapons that could easily destroy any other nation utterly within less than a day. It can also launch bombs, missiles, or just thousands of heavily-armed soldiers, anywhere in the world. It even lays claim to military supremacy in space. Therefore, as the world's biggest gorilla, what it says goes; and it uses this dominance to further its own interests (including those of US corporations and citizens).
Either of these can be readily supported by various logical arguments. Unfortunately, they cannot both be true, as (2) gives the USA licence to disregard the supposed rights of other individuals, corporations, and nations where they clash with its own. However, many Americans tend to transpose deftly from one to the other in the same context - sometimes even within the same sentence. It would be nice to know which is the official position.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
' If I, while in the US, create a website that defames the King of Thailand do you expect the US would send me there to do my time? '
In Germany, the rules for extradition (from Germany to another country) are:
1. It must have been a crime according to German law, but committed in the country that asks for extradition. As it is relevant in this case, the location where a crime is committed is the place where it takes effect, so it would be _possible_ for someone being physically in Australia to commit a crime in the USA.
2. The person to be extradited must be able to expect a fair trial.
3. There is no "cruel or unusual" punishment for that crime. This prevents death sentence for anyone extradited from Germany to the USA.
And a few minor points, like the country asking for extradition must show enough proof that German prosecution in the same situation would put the case to a court, and you can't get extradited for anything minor, where the extradition itself would be more punishment than the crime is worth.
So for defacing a picture of the Thai king, you wouldn't be extradited. (Note that insulting foreign heads of state might get you into trouble in Germany. Obviously you can't get extradited for that, because Thailand cannot claim that you are insulting a foreign head of state. )
... and one guy exporting Nazi literature for the US to Germany made the mistake of traveling to Denmark, which promptly extradited him to Germany.
Now I personally think since he was so happy with the way the Nazis ran Germany, they should have treated him how the Nazis would have treated him (most likely death through hanging, which they used to do with people distributing pamphlets against the current government), but they just put him to jail for a few years, and you won't find anyone named Bubba in a German jail...
You are absolutely right! Foreign citizens have absolutely no rights for a trial when they are extradited to the US. But realistically the purpose of extradition was to provide a means of "reacquiring" US citizens who have committed crimes in the US and then fled to the safety of another country.
;) Sorry NewYorkCountryLawyer I really do like you.
I do not know much about Drink or Die but based on the article I would assume that they primarily reverse engineered copy protections and what not. If this is the case then I am not even sure how they would come up with an accurate number for damages. I personally believe that while it MAY be wrong to download music or whatever, under no circumstances is it wrong to provide someone with the information in order to do it themselves. Or we should arrest everyone who has ever shared any information that someone else could use for nefarious purposes, here are some examples that I think we should act upon immediately:
1. Scientists - these guys are constantly releasing information about different chemical compounds, not to mention explosives, and nuclear materials. All of which can be used for most evil of plots.
2. Anatomy Book Publishers - these guys release books teaching "students" about vital portions of the body. Now how many serial killers do you know that were never a student?
3. Lawyers - I am not even going to justify this one
4. Mothers/Fathers - When I was a kid my parents gave me the birds and the bees talk (you know the one about sex). Man now that information can be used in some pretty evil ways. It is a good thing that I am on slashdot and therefore am sexual incompetent so I have not been able to utilize this evil knowledge fully.
$diff terrorists hippies
$
$rm -rf *terrorists *hippies
It would be like the US trying to extradite someone from Amsterdam for smoking pot.
The Netherlands does actually get dozens of US extradition requests a year for drugs related crimes, and regularly does extradite Dutch citizens for engaging in drugs transactions with Americans and in some cases even with DEA agents operating on Dutch soil. It's a major political issue here, but the major (conservative) government coalition parties apparently basically tolerate this kind of activity because it creates a possibility to use forms of entrapment that would otherwise be illegal here, and it is easier to get people in jail in the US, particularly through plea bargaining, which is also illegal here. Just smoking pot is safe, though.
Did you pay the Harry Fox agency the appropriate license fee to reproduce those lyrics?
No?
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
This "New World Order" goes back at LEAST 60 years
I will say, however, that this is the first time I've heard of anything involving extradition for violating US law when the person involved has never set foot in the US, and the crimes never took place on US soil.
I think Iran would gladly love to get the criminal G. W. Bush... and put him into jail or maybe execute him.
Now think about it. How many stupid laws from stupid countries have you broken in your peaceful life in the US. Want an example: ever had sex without being married? That's a serious crime in Iran, Saudi, UAE and many other countries... You can get serious fines and jail time for it.
Either the law is the same in the two countries, which is the case here, and thus it is unfair to extradate the person because he would be more able to defend itself in is home country, he would be able to have support from his family... visits during his jail time. etc... So there should be no extradition.
Either the law is different but the crime for the "foreign" country was committed in the home country. In that case what he did is not a crime so there's no extradition.
Extradition should be only reserved for cases where the crime occured in a foreign country.
In this case, the extradition is unfair. The crime happened only in Australia. There was no hacking into US computers or anything alike.
I honestly can't think of any reason why someone should be extradited in this way.
At first glance, it's difficult to imagine why country A would send a person to country B for prosecution, when the person did something that is also illegal in country A. The answer relates to everything behind that single word: prosecution.
In this case, the United States has all the evidence and has conducted the investigation and is the entity making the accusation.
This is part of the reason extradition agreements are so complex. The Australian government has reviewed the United States' case against the accused and believes it has merit. That combined with the other standard rules of extradition treaties (such as a guarantee to a fair trial, protection from cruel and unusual treatment, etc) are the reasons governments will extradite their own citizens.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Every time a Dutch citizen avails himself of a prostitute, he's "blatantly flaunting American law". Tough noogies.
Every time a British citizen drives on the left side of the road, they're "blatantly flaunting American law". Tough noogies.
How many more examples do you want?
Extradition treaties exist to get people who committed a crime IN a country, BACK TO the country, if they've since left. This guy has never been in the USA, and broke no laws in the USA.
I don't think people should be focusing on the USA here in any case - you can't really blame them for trying. The party people SHOULD be pissy with is the Australian government, for going along with this shit and not telling the Americans to go hump a roo.
Eh, maybe you should mention that German citizens cannot be extradited as per Article 16 GG. The only exception is the extradition to an international court e.g. Den Haag. There may be possibilities to extradite German citizens to other EU nations (Europäisches Haftbefehlsgesetz), but such laws have either been ruled to be unconstitutional in the past or they wouldn't apply in this case.
-- The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
My only disagreement is simply, with the world wide nature of the internet, how can we say that he never set foot in the US? I mean literally, sure, he never set foot in the US, but his actions were crimes under US law and did harm to individuals/corporations that are protected by US law. Just because he didn't physically commit the crimes here, doesn't mean he's exempt from accountability for his actions. Isn't that the whole point of laws, Government protecting the rights of individuals and corporations? Isn't it possible in the internet age to commit all your crime on the internet? Say he hacked into the Bank of America, and stole a million bucks, again never having set foot in the US, would we still be having this conversation? I don't agree with every policy the US makes, however this one seems like a good idea to me. In the era of the WORLD WIDE web, how can we not support those that would use it to cause harm being held accountable for their actions? Of course, the US should be held to the same standards...
The Answer
As someone which has lived in Holland for many years and just recently left the country due to it's high taxes, ever decreasing public services and progressive leaning to the conservative right (Note: as a foreigner i couldn't vote) allow me to point you that the Dutch did it to themselfs (and just recentely did it again by re-electing the same moralist, religious right-wing conservatives).
In a sense, the scenario in Holland is very similar to the one in Australia - a conservative, right-wing party got to power just when the economy was bouncing back from recession, proceeded to pass moralistic laws, rules and regulations and has hold on to power by claiming the results of the economic recovery as their doing (when in fact that would have happenned anyway, even if the government was made up of semi-trained monkeys).
I'm happy i'm an experienced migrant with highly portable skills, though concerned for my friends in Holland and their families.
Let's hope that the next recession won't end up being harder on both countries than it should've otherwise.
I have to say, this is a somewhat naive point of view. If you look through the history of the world, The United States is one of the most benign superpowers ever. Are we as bad as the Romans, British, or even the French when they were colonial powers. We are not even attempting to be a colonial power like any of those nations. If you don't like the current administration, fine don't support them, but please don't pretend like they are these horrible outrageous people. They are following the policy and path that several generations of Americans have REQUIRED of them. That is why they were elected.
Perhaps some of the countries who are accusing us of being horrible people would feel a little bit better if they didn't outsource all of their defense and government obligations to us over the last 60 years. "We don't like how you are protecting us, so spend your money in the way we see fit." All of these countries were our bestest buddies in the whole wide world when the Russians were breathing down their necks, but like teenagers who have no memory and can't see a minute in front of them, they have completely forgotten.
I can't even really address the human rights violation part because it is so silly. Are you referring to the dreading things going on at Gitmo? It's awful that we feed people there so they gain the "Gitmo 20" I know. I also can't believe we give them the religious material of their choice and allow them to exercise their religion while they are there. Oh and don't forget the dreaded pink belly technique that we use on them. I could go through the list of names to highlight why were are the angels in this situation (see Nick Berg), but I don't think it would be worth wasting my breath. I'll just end with this simple question:
Who would you rater be?
a. an Iraqi/Jordanian/Egyptian freedom fighter captured by the US
b. A US/British/insert nationality here soldier or citizen captured by al queda or other islamic terrorists?
Point made?
Does that mean my rights don't deserve protection?
No, it means I don't care what happens to you if you aren't willing to require your own government to protect you. Read what I said, not what you think I mean.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
You mean by sending an email to someone you become subject to the jurisdiction of the state they are in?
That sounds like bullcrap to me.
>> but as soon as the guy sent cracked IP to the US,
so what he should claim is that he never actually sent it, just that he made it available and others who happened to be in the US downloaded it.
Another poster addressed the "first" issue. I'm going to argue about the "best".
In what way is the US the "best" democracy?
As I see it, you just have two political parties in practice, and they make sure the situation remains like that. Those two parties are almost the same.
Here in Argentina, we cover pretty much anything from left to right, in Spain it is pretty much the same, and governments regularily go from left to right and viceversa. In the US you've got right and extreme right, and frankly, it is getting harder to see the difference.
Your system is designed to make sure the minorities have no say in the government. At least in Argentina we have a couple of deputies for the minorities, and that sparks some debate in the house, so you can see how important it is for them to be there.
You have a government that spies on their own and sends people to Guantanamo prison without trial and just because they claim they're "terrorists", for fuck's sake!
I'd say the US is not the "best democracy", but something pretending to be that (and not doing a very good job).
GPG 0x1B479C78
What happens to the innocent people there who eventually go home? There are many held at Gitmo who have already proven to be innocent who are stuck there because their home countries won't allow them back.
No matter how bad these people are, we should not stoop to their level and must respect human rights, otherwise we are little better than they are. This country was founded on certain principals, and if we throw them out because of terrorists, then the terrorists have won.
I agree we should throw the book at those responsible for terrorism, but I also believe in habeus corpus. If they're guilty, lock them up forever or in some cases death, but make sure they're guilty first. Our current behavior has robbed the US of the moral high ground in the eyes of many outside this country.
After all, would you fully trust the word of Pakistan about who is innocent and who is guilty? After all, they were one of the Taliban's biggest supporters up until 9/11 and still support them through numerous warlords.
As for blaming Carter, you also should blame Ronald Reagan for quietly cowing to the terrorists in Lebanon and illegally supplying weapons to Iran or supporting WMDs in Iraq and Saddam. Carter was a wimp and screwed up, but so did Ronald Reagan. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Interventions _of_the_Reagan_AdministrationWikipedia.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Marc Emery
-EL
'You know, it's entirely acceptable to visit Australia with a regular passport. You don't have to wait for the pendulum to swing back, break an Aussie law, and then "visit" Australia to get the hell out of the US.'
Unless you visit on your own you won't be visiting Australia. I don't believe i have ever heard of a US citizen being extradited to another nation for breaking its laws while on US soil.
If you could actually measure it, I'm betting that you are wrong. Every time we have a Republican administration in the US, we get 4-8 years of shocking corruption. Every Republican administration since Nixon, for example, has had an average of 8 times as many high-level officials convicted as each Dem administration. Carter may have been ineffectual, but he was clean. I'm born in '56 and there was only one relatively clean GOP administration in my lifetime, the one in power the day I was born.
Oh, there's scandals during the Dem admins, but they're usually BS, ala Whitewater.
You are welcome on my lawn.