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.
It's been common knowledge for years that Howard is Bush's lapdog, but if his government isn't even willing to protect its own citizens from foreign prosecutions, how can you really say Australia isn't just a puppet state of the US?
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Perhaps the fact that he isn't under US jurisdiction?
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?
Others, however, argue that extradition is necessary to prevent internet crimes that transcend borders.
But yet nothing is done to catch the 419 scammers and all the spammers selling (often fake) pharmaceuticals.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
That's not the drum of revolution, it's the contented monotony of suburban life.
Well the US is not the World Police. He also broke Australian law, and the crime was committed on Australian soil, so should have been charged and tried there. A sovereign country's citizens should be tried under that country's law, unless the US fancies an international court to handle international crimes.
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.
I'm a bit stunned that Australian law obviously allows extraditing their citizens to other countries. Here in Germany such action is _strictly_ prohibited by the German Constitution.
Sigs suck!
Assuming you're American, would you want to be extradited to Australia for breaking an Australian law in the US even though you'd never been to Australia?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
A sovereign country's citizens should be tried under that country's law, unless the US fancies an international court to handle international crimes.
They do.
Just so long as it doesn't involve US citizens. Or military personnel.
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.
Typically, countries will assert jurisdiction over acts committed within their geographic territory or acts committed by their own citizens wherever they may be. Sometimes a country will assert that a foreign national--though not actually setting foot in the country--has reached out to its jurisdiction by some act, thus invoking "the long arm of the law." Examples would include sending a mail bomb, or breaking into a computer over the internet.
This case does not appear to be based on any of those theories of jurisdiction. According to the article, the US charged Mr. Griffiths with conspiracy. Under conspiracy, any one conspirator is liable for the acts of any other person in the conspiracy.
This is very troublesome when applied to such a mundane crime as copying works and giving them to people who never would have bought them in the first place. The actual effect of the conspiracy is arguably insignificant. It doesn't seem as troublesome when applied to something who planned the 9/11 attacks, where the effect is very significant. But the theory of jurisdiction is the same: conspiracy with people who committed criminal acts inside the prosecuting country.
You'll be hearing shortly from the government of Nigeria. Your comments about their citizens were deemed to be illegal under Nigerian legal code Section 13.43b and you will be extradited to face criminal charges there.
Have a nice day.
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]
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.
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and
(c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright; and
(d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than 550 penalty units or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and
(c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright and the person is negligent as to that fact; and
(d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale and the person is negligent as to that fact.
Penalty: 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both. There is absolutely no reason to extradite him except for political convenience or expediency, which should NEVER be a basis for depriving someone so severely of their status as a citizen. As Justice Young noted, we should beware allowing (and effecting) foreign prosecutions where the conduct is almost entirely referential to Australia.
If equivalent offences were not in existence in Australia, then perhaps I might be more willing to accept it (although even then I would have drastic reservations). As it stands, I cannot accept this.
If an American currently in Australia is mugged then that crime is comitted in Australia. The fact that American interests (people) were affected does not mean that the offence was comitted in the USA.
The global nature of the Internet does make the location of some crimes ambiguous but that doesn't make it right to just go ahead and pick a jurisdiction.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
No. The guy is australian, broke australian law whilst in australia - why the F**K is he being tried in America again?
If you break a law in a country you get tried IN THAT COUNTRY. Extradition works to preserve that - if you break the law then leave the country, you can be extradited BACK to that country to stand trial.
Uh, yes, actually, it's called "sovereignty" and other countries get to have it too! Sucks for us, don't it?
If you want to stop "harm to American interests" then the appropriate method of doing it is to deal with the UN and international law, not to bully other countries into following our national ones.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Oh, by the way, I'm sure you and just about every other American has done enough things that are illegal in some country that we'd be locked up for life, or worse, if we were extradited there. Have sex outside of marriage, or in some "deviant" (i.e., anything other than missionary) position? I'll bet that's a capital offense in some religion-infested place. Spit on the sidewalk? That'll land you in prison in Indonesia. Drive on the right side of the road? Ooh, that's a severe violation in England and Japan! Remember, it doesn't matter that you were driving down Route 66 at the time...
Now, think of the madness that would ensue if everyone were as stupid and shortsighted as you are. Aren't you glad you're not in charge?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
Remember that "The USA" is not really equivalent to the US nation and its people. The foreign and domestic politics of "The USA" are designed to maximize the wealth of a few dozen families that controls Congress and most big business in the US. At the expense of millions of Americans that has to do with living on minimum wage. The USA as the World Police is a construction created to serve these families interests, not the American people. The American people are just as much the victim of it as everyone else.
Football Odds
Actually, the crime committed was under the Council of Europe Cybercrime treaty, and one of the provisions is extradition. It merely makes sense in our networked world to have treaties that allow for extrajudicial criminal invesitgations. Otherwise, criminals would sit in a country with the most lax laws, and conduct obviously criminal activities against other nations, whose hands would be tied. With regard to hate speech, that was placed in a seperate treaty so that the US would not have to sign it, or more accurately, so the US could sign the other provisions of the treaty. As hate crime legislation is against the 1st Amendment in the US, even if the Senate ratified the treaty, the Supreme Court would hold it invalid. So, that is why there is a difference.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
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 USA is the world's most progressive nation, in the sense that it is the first and best democracy...
Honestly, is that what they teach you in America? The word democracy is an ancient Greek word. Why would the ancient Greeks have a word for something that didn't exist until 1776? Because democracy existed long before the United States did. India was a democracy 8000 years ago, Afghanistan and Pakistan 6000 years ago. The Iroquois Confederacy, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Althing in Iceland, early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Slavic countries... all democracies, all before the US came into being.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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.
It counts because *Australia has preferential voting*. If after the primary vote is counted, the party you voted for as your first preference has the lowest number of votes, that party is eliminated from the race and its votes are redistributed to other other parties according to your *second* preference. This continues until there are only two parties left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting
Whilst this system of counting is not the best, statistically speaking (the best are Condorcet methods, though they also have their weaknesses) it is simple to understand (and count), and in the vast majority of cases results in the candidate who is most preferred by the most number of people being elected.
The US method of "plurality" voting is statistically the *worst* method available.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system