Home Office To Ignore Wikipedia Founder's Petition Against O'Dwyer Extradition

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Home Office To Ignore Wikipedia Founder's Petition Against O'Dwyer Extradition

Posted by Unknown on Monday July 2, 2012 @07:20PM from the if-jimbo-can't-nobody-can dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Home Office has confirmed home secretary Theresa May will not block TVShack founder Richard O'Dwyer's U.S. extradition, despite widespread calls for her to do so." It would appear the fate of the tvshack founder is now sealed.

276 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Time and Place by Dan+B. · 2012-07-02 19:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

So if you do something that is not a crime in your own country, but is in another, yet you never set foot in that country, you can now be extradited? Wouldn't that fall under persecution grounds for asylum? Maybe I should check with the Equadorian Embassy...

--
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
1. Re:Time and Place by Barny · 2012-07-02 19:33 · Score: 2
  
  Only so long as the crime is committed IN the country it is illegal in.
  
  --
  ...
  /me sighs
2. Re:Time and Place by kraut · 2012-07-02 19:39 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  > Only so long as the country the alleged crime was committed in is the USA.
  There. Fixed that for you.
  
  --
  no taxation without representation!
3. Re:Time and Place by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-07-02 19:44 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If I fire a gun from the England border into Scotland and kill someone, you can bet I'll be extradited to Scotland to stand trial for murder.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
4. Re:Time and Place by 91degrees · 2012-07-02 19:45 · Score: 1
  
  The argument is that this is illegal in the UK. Not totally convinced myself but this is what they claimed.
5. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 19:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Yes, if you happen to be in the UK when America takes an interest in you. Best avoid the UK like lava. Leave the Brits to enjoy their prison island.
6. Re:Time and Place by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-02 19:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Exactly. These people are supposedly guilty of the heinous crime of... copying! Totally worth extraditing someone over, and why not waste taxpayer money doing so? It's not our money!
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
7. Re:Time and Place by Sique · 2012-07-02 19:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But only because murder is illegal in England too.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
8. Re:Time and Place by GeekInComa · 2012-07-02 19:56 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Shortly after I traveled the world and developed bad case of schizophrenia, I was also under extradition request. In this case, however, they got inside my brain and are trying to lurk me into visiting their country. I am now in mental hospital because of this trickery in my brains. What can I do?
9. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 20:03 · Score: 1
  
  not copying, linking to someone who allegedly copied, so I guess if included a similar link in this post, slashdot owners would be locked up in Gitmo as well, wouldn't they?
10. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 20:06 · Score: 0
  
  > Only so long as the alleged act is a crime in the USA.
  There. Fixed that for you.
  No, really FTFY
11. Re:Time and Place by tehcyder · 2012-07-02 20:09 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If I fire a gun from the England border into Scotland and kill someone, you can bet I'll be extradited to Scotland to stand trial for murder.
  Isn't the slight difference that murder is a crime in both countries, whereas copyright infringement isn't?
  
  I don't think I've ever heard of anyone being extradited for a civil matter before, although no doubt someone can prove me wrong.
  
  I have zero personal sympathy for this guy. I read an interview recently in which he said he had spent the GBP140K he had earned from his website on "normal student things" like going to the cinema and buying pizza. Which is such a load of bollocks it's a joke..
  
  However, he certainly shouldn't be extradited for this. If this had been the other way round, there is no way he would have been extradited from the US to the UK even if he had committed a real, serious crime.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
12. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 20:12 · Score: 0
  
  That simply cannot be true. O'Dwyer has not been to the US.
13. Re:Time and Place by Pseudonym · 2012-07-02 20:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Interestingly, there have been test cases to this effect in Commonwealth countries. There was a famous test case to this effect in Australia, where someone fired a gun on one side of a state border (much of the decision was to decide precisely where the border was) and killed a person who was on the other side.
  The murder, it was ruled, happened in the state where the victim was shot.
  
  --
  sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
14. Re:Time and Place by Zemran · 2012-07-02 20:30 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  Errr, you do realise that Scotland and England are the same country??? There is no reason to extradite as the Scottish policeman can just arrest you as you are still in the UK... Other than that and you are talking about a crime rather than a civil offence etc., good point.
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
15. Re:Time and Place by Dan541 · 2012-07-02 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  However Richard O'Dwyer never crossed any borders.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
16. Re:Time and Place by Dan541 · 2012-07-02 20:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Wait until countries like Pakistan and Iran get in on this. All western women will need to be deported for stoning.
  
  --
  An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
17. Re:Time and Place by julesh · 2012-07-02 20:46 · Score: 1
  
  And, by my understanding, that question is actually still to be resolved, and will be resolved by the appeals court.
18. Re:Time and Place by GeekInComa · 2012-07-02 20:48 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying Google is behind my mind manipulation?
  
  Odd thing btw, I searched for schizophrenia and now Slashdot and every other site on the internet shows ads for schizophrenia treatment. It's really weird to surf the internet with other people now.
19. Re:Time and Place by 91degrees · 2012-07-02 20:52 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Facilitating copyright infringement. The mechanism used is irrelevant, even if the mechanism is something as simple as a link.
20. Re:Time and Place by maroberts · 2012-07-02 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  Well technically Scotland and England have entirely different legal systems, and police/ law enforcement are not an issue for the House of Commons, but a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Mainly defense, foriegn affairs and taxation are matters for the House of Commons and most other things are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and legal system. If you want a more exact answer then read Wikipedia
  
  --
  Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
  Karma: Chameleon
21. Re:Time and Place by 91degrees · 2012-07-02 21:13 · Score: 2
  
  They have different legal systems though. And you would be tried under Scottish law.
  
  But this isn't murder. It's copyright infringement. The physical location of the servers hosting the data, or of the client, or of the website, or of the defendant could all be relevant, but where he happened to register the domain seems to have as much relevance as where he bought his PC.
22. Re:Time and Place by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-07-02 21:22 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Scotland and England are the same country in the same way that Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland are the same country, in that they're not. Separate parliament, police force, legal system... The UK is a sovereign state, not a country.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
23. Re:Time and Place by wild_quinine · 2012-07-02 21:26 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Here are the important facts.
  1) O'Dwyer never went to the US whilst running the site. He visited as a small child, but I don't think he has a stronger connection to the US than this.
  2) The servers on which his service were being run were not in the US.
  Most sensible people would therefore argue that he hasn't comitted a crime on US soil.
  But it gets worse. The existing case law in the UK suggests very strongly that the UK does not consider what O'Dwyer did to be a crime. A similar site (TV links) was accused in similar circumstances and let off the hook, because it was deemed to be a 'mere conduit' (Like a safe harbour defense, rather than that deciding that *linking to things is not a crime*, for example).
  Now a UK judge has said that O'Dwyer probably was criminal in this case, because he exerted considerable control over the site, and therefore cannot use the same defense.
  But that's smoke and mirrors, frankly. The way we figure out if that is a crime or not is to try him in court, not to push him off to some corrupt nation where it definitely is a crime.
24. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2012-07-02 21:27 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Errr, you do realise that Scotland and England are the same country???
  No, they aren't. They are distinct countries, each of which is part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
25. Re:Time and Place by Nocturnal+Deviant · 2012-07-02 21:38 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  as long as they take the girls in southern jersey, they might convert me to islam.....
  
  --
  -Noc
26. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 22:40 · Score: 0
  
  The want to split from Europe anyway.
27. Re:Time and Place by chrb · 2012-07-02 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland are the same country
  That is a particularly bad example due to the conflict over that territory and the fact that, due to that conflict, there is nothing politically linking them apart from them both joining the E.U. in the last few decades. There has been no similar civil conflict over the union of Scotland and England in recent times. How about a different example: Hawaii and Texas? Two somewhat different societies, with different political systems, different legal systems, but also represented by a unified parliament? Would you say Hawaii and Texas are two different countries? It all depends on how you define "country".
  
  Separate parliament
  Parliament of the United Kingdom
  
  police force,
  Not really. Different in name, but Scottish police officers can make arrests in England, and vice versa. It is common for police to move throughout the UK, and in times of civil strife (G8, protests, riots etc.) you will find police from London, Manchester, and elsewhere walking the streets of Scotland. During the England riots last year, Scottish police were enforcing the law and making arrests in England. This is nothing like the situation in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, where police officers from one region would have no power in the other.
  
  legal system...
  
  Yes, different legal system.
28. Re:Time and Place by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-07-02 23:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Thank you for putting someone who has been maintaining a link site into the same category with someone who sends letter bombs and murderers. For a moment I was a bit unsure, thinking that in extradition requests the seriousness of the crime and potential differences of maximum penalties in both countries ought to be considered, but your post has made it quite clear to me that having a site with links to potentially copyright infringing content should be treated directly on a par with terrorism and murder.
29. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 23:17 · Score: 0
  
  They didn't even copy.. they just pointed out places where others had done the copying.
30. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 23:20 · Score: 0
  
  So if you do something that is not a crime in your own country, but is in another, yet you never set foot in that country, you can now be extradited?
  
  Only if that other country considers itself an empire..
31. Re:Time and Place by Phrogman · 2012-07-02 23:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Except that as a number of people have pointed out above you, its a considerable question as to whether or not what he is accused of doing was in fact a crime in the UK.
  It doesn't matter though, the Media Moguls and their henchmen have enough power to shape the US legal code, and in effect decree foreign policy on issues like this. Legality doesn't apply when the US Empire flexes its might.
  Apparently if you do anything, anywhere, that the US Government doesn't like, you *will* be extradited to the US. This is just another example.
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
32. Re:Time and Place by igb · 2012-07-02 23:22 · Score: 1
  
  They've stepped the civil offence up to a criminal one by claiming conspiracy to infringe copyright, which makes it criminal.
33. Re:Time and Place by Bunzinator · 2012-07-02 23:25 · Score: 1
  
  Damn straight. And since the US now officially supports countries prosecuting people under their own laws for crimes committed anywhere on the planet, regardless of whether it's a crime there or not, then all you Americans who've had extra-marital sex can pack per bags! You're all off to Iran for your 100 lashes.
34. Re:Time and Place by mrbester · 2012-07-02 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Linking is *not* a crime in UK, no matter what some district judge might personally think. There is no legislation saying it is a crime (or even civil misdemeanour), just an opinion by someone who has nothing to do with any part of an extradition process and forgot that he is supposed to interpret law, not make it up. What he said was "probably illegal" and has no place whatsoever in any legal proceedings.
  Posting a letter bomb is most definitely a crime in UK, even if it doesn't kill / maim / hurt anyone because the intent was there.
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
35. Re:Time and Place by martin-boundary · 2012-07-02 23:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  By that idea, each time some mountain dew swilling military drone 'pilot' bombs some family in Afghanistan, they should be sent over there to be punished for the crime.
  The truth is that there are no rules about crimes in the world, just local conventions. The British people should rightly be up in arms about this particular case, as it means their government is selling them out to a foreign power.
36. Re:Time and Place by RaceProUK · 2012-07-02 23:56 · Score: 1
  
  Scotland has its own parliament (Holyrood) in addition to Westminster.
  
  --
  No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
37. Re:Time and Place by gnasher719 · 2012-07-03 00:08 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you for putting someone who has been maintaining a link site into the same category with someone who sends letter bombs and murderers.
  
  Where did I equate each? What I did was give an example where a crime is committed without the person committing it being anywhere near the place where it is committed, which demonstrates how the argument "he wasn't even in the USA" doesn't matter. You are confusing various things that could be argued about, like the location of the crime and the seriousness, so I had to unconfuse them.
38. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 00:09 · Score: 0
  
  What has GBP140K got to do with anything? Copyright infringement is either wrong or it isn't.
  The amount of money made or lost doing so isn't relevant.
39. Re:Time and Place by TFAFalcon · 2012-07-03 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  What if you shoot the guys dog, that just escaped over the border into England? Will Scottish law apply just because the alleged 'victim' was Scottish?
40. Re:Time and Place by MindlessAutomata · 2012-07-03 00:11 · Score: 1
  
  So if I slander Muhammed the Prophet in Saudia Arabia...
41. Re:Time and Place by TemperedAlchemist · 2012-07-03 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  But think of all those accountants that get to handle the millions of alleged dollars the MPAA/RIAA would make in a world without piracy! And since they don't have jobs well they're gonna go commit suicide.
  Sounds like murder to me.
  (Not even kidding, this is the same reasoning used by the propaganda video played on tvshack.net.)
42. Re:Time and Place by The+Askylist · 2012-07-03 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  If you're schizophrenic, don't both of you surf the net at the same time anyway?
  Brings to mind the '79 LP by Ian Hunter - "You're Never Alone With A Schizophrenic"
43. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  Killing someone is a crime in most countries. Definitely a crime in both England and Scotland.
44. Re:Time and Place by phayes · 2012-07-03 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  GP cogently used an example where there is no doubt that a crime has been committed to refute the GGP argument that committing a crime in one country from another is a grey area.O'Dwyer is being treated a s criminal because the crimes O'Dwyer is accused of are criminal in the US & the extradition treaty between the two counties does not make exceptions that apply here.
  
  --
  Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
45. Re:Time and Place by Ash+Vince · 2012-07-03 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  So if you do something that is not a crime in your own country, but is in another, yet you never set foot in that country, you can now be extradited? Wouldn't that fall under persecution grounds for asylum? Maybe I should check with the Equadorian Embassy...
  Nope. In this case we are extraditing him because the crime he is accused of is also a crime here as well just with such a low sentence (maximum 6 months instead of 5 years) their is no public interest in prosecuting him. If what he did was not a crime here though he would not have a problem.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
46. Re:Time and Place by Ash+Vince · 2012-07-03 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  And, by my understanding, that question is actually still to be resolved, and will be resolved by the appeals court.
  If it is held not to be illegal, you can be damn sure the tories will rush through a law that makes it illegal again pretty quick.
  The fact is that this guy encouraged others (the conspiracy part) to submit him links where you could download or watch stuff that you were not paying the copyright holder for. He then ran a web site that amalgamated the links into a nice easily searchable system and took money from advertisers based on the number of page hits he was getting. By the sounds of it he made around £140,000.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
47. Re:Time and Place by hawkinspeter · 2012-07-03 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  I dare you to go to Scotland and call someone English! They most definitely are not the same country. Also, Wales is not the same country as England.
  
  You must be confusing countries and nations e.g. Scotland, Wales and England are all part of Britain.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
48. Re:Time and Place by hawkinspeter · 2012-07-03 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  How is linking (to someone else who may be infringing copyright) a crime in the UK?
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
49. Re:Time and Place by alices+ice · 2012-07-03 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  that's because killing the guy would be illegal in both countries. linking to stuff is not illegal in the uk
50. Re:Time and Place by dave420 · 2012-07-03 01:15 · Score: 2
  
  Making money from systematic copyright infringement is a criminal offence, in both the US and England.
51. Re:Time and Place by dave420 · 2012-07-03 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Wales has the same legal system as England, which is different to that in Scotland.
52. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry for everything else they just go straight to drone strikes now.
53. Re:Time and Place by ae1294 · 2012-07-03 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  If it is held not to be illegal, you can be damn sure the tories will rush through a law that makes it illegal again pretty quick.
  The fact is that this guy encouraged others (the conspiracy part) to submit him links where you could download or watch stuff that you were not paying the copyright holder for. He then ran a web site that amalgamated the links into a nice easily searchable system and took money from advertisers based on the number of page hits he was getting. By the sounds of it he made around £140,000.
  Sounds like he invented some sort of google....
54. Re:Time and Place by ae1294 · 2012-07-03 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  100 lashes? What is that, like $6.25 US?
55. Re:Time and Place by alexo · 2012-07-03 01:52 · Score: 1
  
  If I fire a gun from the England border into Scotland and kill someone, you can bet I'll be extradited to Scotland to stand trial for murder.
  Probably because murder is considered a crime in both countries.
56. Re:Time and Place by drinkypoo · 2012-07-03 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  I have zero personal sympathy for this guy. I read an interview recently in which he said he had spent the GBP140K he had earned from his website on "normal student things" like going to the cinema and buying pizza. Which is such a load of bollocks it's a joke..
  
  I had no problem burning up USD60k by going out to eat and whatnot and I stayed home most of the time. I hear shit costs more over there in general, so it wouldn't surprise me if someone with an active social life managed to just piss that away going on dates.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
57. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  +1 underated (even though I disagree). Moderators: Quit being a bag of dicks and marking dissenting opinions as troll so I have to waste my mod points.
58. Re:Time and Place by chrb · 2012-07-03 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, but that does not make it a country - but as I said, it depends on how you define "country", see Scotland is not a country for a list of reasons why Scotland might not be considered a country.
  (Texas and Hawaii also have their own Senate and Constitution etc. but that does not make them countries).
59. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, go to California, and call someone Texan, they'ren ot the same country. They have seperate courts and everything.
  Cluebyfour....
60. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe I should check with the Equadorian Embassy...
  Say hi to Julian.
61. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 02:45 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, but shooting people is a crime *in both countries.* If I call the Thai king a pompous twit, I don't get extradited to Thailand. Because it's not a crime here.
62. Re:Time and Place by Arancaytar · 2012-07-03 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Because murder is, in fact, a crime in England as well as Scotland.
  If you publish Muhammad cartoons in Denmark, you can bet you won't be extradited to Saudi Arabia to stand trial for blasphemy.
63. Re:Time and Place by hawkinspeter · 2012-07-03 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  It could be argued that the different states are different countries due to the different laws, but as the USA has a central government, it's more usually considered a single country.
  
  It's a bit more complicated in the UK - Scotland has it's own parliament whereas Wales and Northern Ireland don't. Wales has it's own language, whereas all the rest just use English (I'm discounting Gaelic as it's not really used). However, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all separate countries.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
64. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  Difference is murder is a crime in England and Scotland. the original comment is that he is getting extradited for something that is _NOT_ a crime in his native country.
65. Re:Time and Place by 91degrees · 2012-07-03 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. It's just a shame that it seemed to be only useful for finding copyright infringing sites.
66. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  He used the example of a murder investigation/terrorism to draw a parallel to copyright infringement and that's just unacceptable. Extradition requests are handled on a case by case basis and are never just automatic. Second, the GGP was right. The extradition request is definitely in a legal grey zone, since tvshack's servers were not even located on US soil and it is moreover based on a conspiracy claim that is most likely wholly insubstantial. The extradition request could have easily been turned down.
  It is true that the treaty sucks, though, and the UK has created themselves a real problem with this case. I also wouldn't be surprised if the extradition violated European law.
67. Re:Time and Place by Thaelon · 2012-07-03 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  guilty of sharing
  
  --
  Question everything
68. Re:Time and Place by CubicleView · 2012-07-03 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a bit fuzzy on the details but generally for extradition you usually have dual criminality. Shooting someone in Scotland from England is a crime in England and Scotland, so your anaolgy is flawed as I don't think O Dwyer has been charged with any crimes in England.
69. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  So do we expect Google C's to be put on trial for showing us where we can obtain illegal downloads?
70. Re:Time and Place by Smauler · 2012-07-03 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  There's no such thing as extradition between England and Scotland. It is, for all intents and purposes, 1 country.
  You're generally tried where the offence occurred, but that's just common sense.
71. Re:Time and Place by Smauler · 2012-07-03 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  You wouldn't call an English person Scottish, either. You wouldn't call me Cornish, because I'm English. It doesn't make sense.
  People claiming Scotland is not a country are not claiming Scottish people are English. They are claiming Scotland is part of the country of the UK.
  Scotland and England are probably closer together legally and socially than most states are in the US. Just because 2 places have different legal systems, does not mean they are not both part of the same sovereign state.
72. Re:Time and Place by ae1294 · 2012-07-03 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. It's just a shame that it seemed to be only useful for finding copyright infringing sites.
  What percentage of non-copyrighted works would be ok with you???
73. Re:Time and Place by phorm · 2012-07-03 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Did you miss something in the grandparent:
  "So if you do something that is not a crime in your own country"
  I'm pretty sure that firing a gun and killing somebody is just as much a crime in England as it is in Scotland.
  Well, nowadays anyhow. In past history I'm fairly sure the English wouldn't have objected as much to firing against the Scots.
74. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  except that you couldn't be extradited because it's all one country, the United Kingdom. You may however be tried under Scottish law.
75. Re:Time and Place by 91degrees · 2012-07-03 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly there's a grey area. However, a site where 99% of its users are provided with legitimate non infringing material, and a site where I'd estimate *at least* 80% of its users were provided with infringing material does indicate a difference in intent. And it's hard to believe the Mr. O'Dwyer was unaware of this infringement.
  
  It also seems pretty clear that TVShack would not have been viable if it only relied on only the subset of material that was legitimate, whereas Google's profitability would hardly be affected.
76. Re:Time and Place by ae1294 · 2012-07-03 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly there's a grey area. However, a site where 99% of its users are provided with legitimate non infringing material, and a site where I'd estimate *at least* 80% of its users were provided with infringing material does indicate a difference in intent. And it's hard to believe the Mr. O'Dwyer was unaware of this infringement.
  It also seems pretty clear that TVShack would not have been viable if it only relied on only the subset of material that was legitimate, whereas Google's profitability would hardly be affected.
  I search for illegal stuff on goggle every day and It's clear that they must be aware of their -filetype:torrent option sooo once again, for the record, what percentage is ok? I really don't want to be sent to gitmo....
77. Re:Time and Place by 91degrees · 2012-07-03 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  Riiiight...
  
  So you're saying that the entire Google operation is simply a cover for their highly profitable -filetype:torrent functionality? Or that the entire purpose that Google provided a -filetype: filter was because they wanted to encourage piracy? Because if you want to prove intent then that's what you'd need to demonstrate.
  
  Can you even demonstrate that a typical user, who uses the -filetype:torrent option is looking for infringing material?
78. Re:Time and Place by ae1294 · 2012-07-03 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just wondering what percentage of copyright infringement gets you deported from your home country to the US, where you have never been, and who decides on such things... Does the WTO have a video I can watch or is it completely up to the US as the world's fucking master.
79. Re:Time and Place by Ash+Vince · 2012-07-03 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  How is linking (to someone else who may be infringing copyright) a crime in the UK?
  Someone else has posted an excerpt somewhere in this discussion, I believe it was under the designs and patents act 1977.
  I think the crime only comes in though if you refuse to remove the link when the copyright holder asks. To be honest though I am not a lawyer so am not really sure though. I would be very surprised if it is legal to run a website thats entire reason for existence was to provide a place for people to exchange links to illegally download copyrighted content. Trying to pass the buck by saying the links all go somewhere else still does not really change that the purpose of the site was to circumvent copyright law.
  Even if this was previously legal then I am fairly sure that the Digital Economy Act 2010 would have changed it since it was drafted with the express intention of clamping down on copyright infringement.
  A quick scan of the wikipedia page on the DEA does show the following:
  Other provisions in the Act include an amendment to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to increase the criminal liability for "making or dealing with infringing articles" and "making, dealing with or using illicit recordings" in the course of business to a maximum of £50,000.[13][14]
  The fact that this includes the words "making or dealing with infringing articles" does lead me to believe it was always illegal as a laymen may very well think that posting a link to an infringing article was in fact "dealing" with it.
  This is a pretty pointless debate though since neither of us is a lawyer.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
80. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  Murder is illegal in both countries.
  Allow me to put this into a better perspective for you. If a working girl is wearing a bikini in California at the beach, do you think they should be extradited to Saudi Arabia for breaking their laws for not dressing modestly or for having a job?
81. Re:Time and Place by hawkinspeter · 2012-07-03 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  I was replying to a post saying that Scotland and England were the same country, which they most definitely are not. The funny thing is how anti-english some of the scots are, which is why I dared anyone to go over to Scotland and call them English (probably something to do with the centuries of animosity between the 2 countries).
  
  I'd call you Cornish or English or British as Cornwall is part of England which is part of Britain (which is part of the UK). However, Scotland is not part of England, although it is part of Britain (and the UK).
  
  I agree that Scotland and England are very closely related legally and being part of the same sovereign state does not necessarily make them the same country.
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
82. Re:Time and Place by 91degrees · 2012-07-03 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  It's based on, amongst other things, a reasonable man test. Would a reasonable man believe, based on evidence available (the quantity of infringing material, how proactive the organisation is in policing this, whether there are other activities by the organisation where the profits are so overwhelming that it would make a low profit criminal activity pointless?
  
  The percentage is not explicit. The law doesn't work like that. If it did, then people would be careful to work right up to the limit.
  
  As for who decides on such things, this is a matter of treaties agreed on by diplomats representing the countries, and interpreted by courts.
  
  I would say "I hope that helps", but I get the impression that your views are based on erroneous assumptions that you're reluctant to shed.
  
  I will however say this. The law is not a computer program based on absolute values. It's based on human concepts based on what a typical person might think. There is often some disagreement about what a "typical" person might think, which is why we have a court system. One disagreement was whether the extradition treaty applies. I personally disagree with the court over this but there's not a lot I can do. The other disagreement is whether the actions would, to an ordinary person, indicate deliberate intent. I think they would and that google's wouldn't. You clearly disagree with me. That's fine, but the US DOJ agrees with me here, and O'Dwyer no doubt agrees with you. The solution here is to use the court as a neutral body to interpret the law.
83. Re:Time and Place by sjames · 2012-07-03 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  That's because it is illegal in England to fire a gun at someone.
  This is more akin to drinking a beer in England and being extradited to Saudi Arabia to face charges because someone there saw a video of your 'transgression'.
84. Re:Time and Place by hawkinspeter · 2012-07-03 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for that - I didn't realise that it was illegal in the UK.
  
  Isn't Slashdot the place for pointless debates?
  
  --
  You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
85. Re:Time and Place by Maritz · 2012-07-03 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  Wales and N. Ireland do have 'assemblies' which are basically devolved local parliaments.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
86. Re:Time and Place by mpe · 2012-07-03 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  So if you do something that is not a crime in your own country, but is in another, yet you never set foot in that country, you can now be extradited? Wouldn't that fall under persecution grounds for asylum? Maybe I should check with the Equadorian Embassy...
  
  Or possibly with New Zealand considering the recent high court ruling over the Megaupload mess.
  No doubt if the person concerned was a terrorist, child rapist or banker they'd have plenty of tax payer funded "human rights" lawyers to help them out. Especially if they had criminal convictions and/or were not a British citizen.
87. Re:Time and Place by s0nicfreak · 2012-07-03 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Sending letter bombs is legal in London?
88. Re:Time and Place by tqk · 2012-07-03 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like he invented some sort of google....
  Yes. It's just a shame that it seemed to be only useful for finding copyright infringing sites.
  So? Was he infringing copyright? No. Can he read the minds of those looking at his website results? No. Many of them were likely MafiAA employees or academic researchers. If a (unbeknownst by you) bank robber asks you for directions to the nearest bank and you tell him, are you going to jail for criminal conspiracy?
  You can find this same stuff in many search engines, I hear.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
89. Re:Time and Place by Patch86 · 2012-07-03 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  That's so very much not true.
  Scotland and England are separate in the same way as Texas and Oklahoma- different police force, legal systems that differ in some ways (but are shared in others), separate legislatures (except for the bits that aren't).
  Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland are separate in the same way as Mexico and New Mexico- they're next to each other, they were the same country at some point in their history, and they've got a similar name- but are otherwise nothing much to do with each other.
90. Re:Time and Place by Patch86 · 2012-07-03 09:35 · Score: 1
  
  I dare you to go to Yorkshire and call someone a Londoner.
  That is not a legal definition of separate countries.
  (Although you are right- I'm just being pedantic).
91. Re:Time and Place by tobiah · 2012-07-03 11:10 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  "I read an interview recently in which he said he had spent the GBP140K he had earned from his website on "normal student things" like going to the cinema and buying pizza. Which is such a load of bollocks it's a joke.. "
  You clearly haven't been to the cinema recently.
  
  --
  "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
92. Re:Time and Place by TheSeatOfMyPants · 2012-07-03 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you're schizophrenic, don't both of you surf the net at the same time anyway?
  Nah, you're thinking of the Linux of the mental illness world, multiple personality disorder. Schizophrenia causes disorganized speech or thinking, hallucinations, and delusions, more like Windows 8's Metro interface.
  
  --
  Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
93. Re:Time and Place by 91degrees · 2012-07-03 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  So? Was he infringing copyright?
  No. He was facilitating copyright infringement, which is what I imagine the charge is.
  
  Can he read the minds of those looking at his website results?
  No, but a reasonable person would realise that most of the sites probably aren't there with the copyright holder's intent, and most of the users probably want to avoid paying.
  
  If a (unbeknownst by you) bank robber asks you for directions to the nearest bank and you tell him, are you going to jail for criminal conspiracy?
  Well, there's the thing. Is it unbeknownst to me? Would a reasonable person assume that the guy with a ski mask and a sawn off shotgun was going there to discuss a change in his mortgage? A taxi driver and a getaway driver may well do exactly the same thing (drive people away from a bank in exchange for money) but one of them is a criminal.
  
  Let me ask you this - Do you genuinely believe, that O'Dwyer set up tvshack without being aware that most people were going to use it to infringe copyright? Because if you do, you, I think you're very naive.
94. Re:Time and Place by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 19:14 · Score: 0
  
  Many of them were likely MafiAA employees or academic researchers.
  It takes a really intelligent person to jump to THIS crazy conclusion.
95. Re:Time and Place by Ash+Vince · 2012-07-03 19:52 · Score: 1
  
  If it is held not to be illegal, you can be damn sure the tories will rush through a law that makes it illegal again pretty quick.
  The fact is that this guy encouraged others (the conspiracy part) to submit him links where you could download or watch stuff that you were not paying the copyright holder for. He then ran a web site that amalgamated the links into a nice easily searchable system and took money from advertisers based on the number of page hits he was getting. By the sounds of it he made around £140,000.
  Sounds like he invented some sort of google....
  Not really. The difference between him and google was automation. Google automate their entire process and the UK law actually recognises that as being a defence. He on the other hand manually checked every link to make sure it was copyright infringing, that was fucking stupid and it is the main reason he is being shafted. I don't agree with sending him to the US for punishment, but I think what he did was wrong too.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
96. Re:Time and Place by tqk · 2012-07-03 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  Let me ask you this - Do you genuinely believe, that O'Dwyer set up tvshack without being aware that most people were going to use it to infringe copyright?
  I think it's equally likely that he didn't care what anyone did with it and just set it up to make some partying cash from embedded ads. He wasn't infringing. He was just posting/aggregating links, just as many web search portals do. What others did with it was not his problem. Is the US going to repeal freedom of speech next?
  My corner store sells drug paraphenlia. They know what the stuff's for. Should they go to jail for that?
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
97. Re:Time and Place by 91degrees · 2012-07-03 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  My corner store sells drug paraphenlia. They know what the stuff's for. Should they go to jail for that?
  The reason i think they shouldn't is that I don't think selling drug paraphernalia should be illegal.
  
  But since the law makes this illegal, and they're clearly knowingly breaking the law, according to the law, they should go to jail. Why? Because they're intentionally breaking the law!
98. Re:Time and Place by tqk · 2012-07-04 01:37 · Score: 1
  
  But since the law makes this illegal, and they're clearly knowingly breaking the law, according to the law, they should go to jail.
  Copyright infringement is against the law. Aggregating and posting links is not against the law, regardless of how much the MafiAA wishes it to be. It's hard to believe that anyone can justify the expense of so many taxpayers' money to police civil copyright infringement, not to mention tangentially related parties. That's not even touching on the morality or ethics of this foolishness.
  I guess the "freetards" are right. US Congresscritters have been bought, lock stock and barrel, and the US' DoJ is on the MafiAA's dog leash.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
99. Re:Time and Place by 91degrees · 2012-07-04 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright infringement is against the law. Aggregating and posting links is not against the law
  This is why he's on trial for facilitating copyright infringement and not Aggregating and posting links. Speeding is against the law. Pushing down on an accelerator pedal is not. Housebreaking is against the law, as is assisting others in doing so. Picking locks is not. It's about intent. The DOJ believes it has adequate evidence to prove intent.
100. Re:Time and Place by tqk · 2012-07-04 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  Copyright infringement is against the law. Aggregating and posting links is not against the law
  This is why he's on trial for facilitating copyright infringement and not Aggregating and posting links.
  Selling someone a computer or blank media could be construed as facilitating then. Are they to go after BestBuy or Intel next? Certainly they're both aware that people use their wares to infringe copyrighted works.
  
  The DOJ believes it has adequate evidence to prove intent.
  The DoJ effort in this is driven by an ex-MafiAA employee. I can't believe you can't see how dirty (and co-opted) this process appears. How is anyone to be expected to respect the law when it's misused in this manner?
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
101. Re:Time and Place by 91degrees · 2012-07-04 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Selling someone a computer or blank media could be construed as facilitating then. Are they to go after BestBuy or Intel next? Certainly they're both aware that people use their wares to infringe copyrighted works.
  Indeed. But they can demonstrate substantial non-infringing use. Although in many countries, as a compromise, a tax is levied to compensate the cartels for the infringing use.
  
  The DoJ effort in this is driven by an ex-MafiAA employee.
  I think your opinion would hold more weight if you didn't announce your bias quite so blatantly. Just a suggestion.
  
  But yes, it's true that the DOJ does have someone who used to work for the media industries. This does not, in itself, prove that there's any bias any more than your referring to the MPAA as the MafiAA invalidates your point. Surely the DOJ is responsible for protecting American companies from criminal harm.
102. Re:Time and Place by tqk · 2012-07-04 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. But they can demonstrate substantial non-infringing use. Although in many countries, as a compromise, a tax is levied to compensate the cartels for the infringing use.
  Yes, and that tax is levied across the board on everyone including me, someone who advocates boycotting them instead. I don't infringe copyrighted works, yet I have to pay them as if I do. I've read a lot of stories from self-described pirates who buy legal media who then download copies to use due to the many impediments (DRM, un-skippable FBI warnings, region encoding, ...) the MafiAA insists on placing in their way. I consider that non-infringing.
  
  The DoJ effort in this is driven by an ex-MafiAA employee.
  I think your opinion would hold more weight if you didn't announce your bias quite so blatantly.
  I willingly admit I am biased. The MafiAA are corrupting politicians and whole countries' electoral and justice systems, buying draconian legislation, and suing kids into poverty for using their computers as they expect to be able to. It's disgraceful. A quarter of a million dollar fine for copying a DVD?!? That's insanely out of proportion to the actual damage caused.
  
  Surely the DOJ is responsible for protecting American companies from criminal harm.
  They're responsible for criminalizing civil copyright infringement because the MafiAA is too "stick in the mud" to learn to adapt to *any* new technology (from sheet music and player pianos through BlueRay), is too lazy to fight their own battles, and can buy our justice systems from greedy politicians.
  You bet I'm biased. This's atrocious! The MafiAA cannot win this war but they're willing to destroy everything in their way trying. The sooner they're consigned to the dustbin of history, the better.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
103. Re:Time and Place by PartyBoy!911 · 2012-07-05 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  That is not a good comparison. Killing someone is illegal in England and Scotland both, but this is more like getting extradited for wearing uderwear and a kilt.
  Any Scotsman found wearing underwear beneath his kilt might be fined two cans of beer.
104. Re:Time and Place by Zemran · 2012-07-06 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Did you actually think before you wrote this? Eire and Northern Ireland are completely separate countries. Eire is a country recognised at the UN with embassies in many other countries (i.e. recognition). Northern Ireland is a part of the UK, another country and also recognised at the UN and with embassies in many other countries. The borders are officially recognised. Northern Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales are not recognised at the UN and do not have embassies in any other countries. They are not countries. Many countries have states with separate legal systems etc. many countries have separate police forces in different regions, these things in themselves do not make a country. You can call anything whatever you like but it is still just your dream until it is recognised.
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
The War on Youth by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 19:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Ah, one more small battle in the War on Youth. Let's see: cameras in the streets, ASBOs, patents that kill new competition, laws against drugs, laws against sharing, laws against resisting arrest, student loans, sugar-laden foods, credit card debt, loss of permanent jobs, the list goes on. The UK and USA lead the world in the War on Youth, which pits the old against the young. Extraditing a couple of "pirates" is just consistent with this theme.
1. Re:The War on Youth by progician · 2012-07-02 21:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Strange thing, but there's truth in this. In an other discussion I was wondering that the current trend in demographics in relation to electorate politics creates a political system that is by nature becomes the enemy of the younger generations, and that is easy to show all over Western Europe. Most of the politicians and the people who vote for them were educated on the expense of the budget, that is, "for free". This generation benefited of the welfare state in every way, health case, job protection, rent control, council housing, cheap mortgage and property prices, so they could cut these services with the line "there ain't such thing as free lunch".
  Ageing population is a real political concern for the under-thirties generation.
2. Re:The War on Youth by gutnor · 2012-07-03 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  It gets even worse when you think that the generation in power in politic and in the private sector is the hippie generation ... they are like the ultimate get off my lawn generation.
3. Re:The War on Youth by khallow · 2012-07-03 00:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Funny how so many social benefits lead to this sort of generational warfare. Education clearly helps the young more while medical care and pensions (especially of the sort that can't be sustained with changing demographics). This is one of the reasons I advocate getting government (well, my government, yours can keeping doing whatever it's doing) out of the entitlement racket.
  
  Among other things, it stirs rivalry between different segments of the population, young versus old, poor versus wealthy, politically marginalized versus the politically connected, uncredentialed versus the credentialed, etc. How are you going to get society-wide cooperation when so many groups are fighting for their piece of government squeeze?
4. Re:The War on Youth by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 12:19 · Score: 0
  
  In other words, how can you get society-wide cooperation to address the crimes of the proletariat when the (old and young) rabble are fighting for scraps to survive from a government they don't control?
5. Re:The War on Youth by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 19:37 · Score: 0
  
  So you want to abolish state provision of education?
6. Re:The War on Youth by progician · 2012-07-03 21:01 · Score: 1
  
  Brief, but good insight.
  It is not the social benefit system that went pear shaped but the ideological framework has changed to that of khallow. The ageing, actively voting, property owning strata of society became the focus of politics because they happened to be the generations that benefited from the social democratic reforms. This means that the bourgeois politics produced mass support for the outright bourgeois ideologies. The working class that supposed to be represented by social democratic parties in a parliamentary democracy lost this representation because the reforms that were committed in the name of social justice. At the very heart of the '68 movements there was already a generational struggle which ran along the lines of the class conflict of capitalism thus the welfare state appears as a vehicle of social control rather than of the emancipation of the working class. It shields the capitalist relationships of the society with other conflicts, reducing everything to a display petite self-interest.
7. Re:The War on Youth by khallow · 2012-07-04 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  It is not the social benefit system that went pear shaped but the ideological framework has changed to that of khallow.
  There's always someone else to blame for your failings and for why the world doesn't work the way you think it should.
  
  The ageing, actively voting, property owning strata of society became the focus of politics because they happened to be the generations that benefited from the social democratic reforms.
  Because they vote and are rather numerous. And why aren't there ample resources to dote on following less numerous generations? If those social democratic reforms really worked, there would be plenty for subsequent generations rather than this pathetic generational conflict. My view is that the whole thing is a beautiful example of throwing good money after bad.
  
  This means that the bourgeois politics produced mass support for the outright bourgeois ideologies.
  Surely there's a shelf life on Marxist doublespeak? This junk was old and stale by the beginning of the 20th century, when someone finally got a chance to use it on an unsuspecting population. It hasn't gotten any better. So why, a century and a half later after it was coined, do you still talk like that?
  
  The working class that supposed to be represented by social democratic parties in a parliamentary democracy lost this representation because the reforms that were committed in the name of social justice.
  Eh, more failure. This sort of thing is expected. But let's talk about my ideology rather than how social democratic reforms and social justice routinely fails hard.
  
  At the very heart of the '68 movements there was already a generational struggle which ran along the lines of the class conflict of capitalism thus the welfare state appears as a vehicle of social control rather than of the emancipation of the working class.
  One can say much the same of any social democratic reform. It's a bribe to keep poor people from breaking rich peoples' shit. And this might be my ideology speaking, but it seems to me that corruption follows this bribe like trains on a track.
  
  It shields the capitalist relationships of the society with other conflicts, reducing everything to a display petite self-interest.
  Well, that agrees with what I was talking about. A little "reform" and then everyone is at each others' throat, trying to get a bigger piece of a zero-sum pie.
8. Re:The War on Youth by khallow · 2012-07-04 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  No, your country can continue providing whatever crap education it provides. I just want people to realize that when you change the orientation of society from progress to selfish divvying of a fixed publicly funded pie, then you'll get all sorts of rather silly conflicts that you wouldn't otherwise get.
Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by fantomas · 2012-07-02 19:41 · Score: 2

Theresa May is from the Conservative Party, the UK's right wing major political party (I think this means something like Democrat in the USA?). Her party is very pro-USA in terms of where they take their political lead from and want to orient their geo-politics - as opposed to, say, a more pro-centrist/socialist European line. So I don't think it's too surprising that she'll be happy to do the US government a small favour on this one.
Some might say it's going too far to extradite UK citizens who are alleged to have broken a US law while in the UK, others might say it's pragmatic to work for closer ties with the world's largest super power when they come asking a favour (which is within English law: the Extradition Act of 2003).
1. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 19:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In America you have the the Republicans, who are the equivalent of our Conservative party, and the Democrats, who are the equivalent of our Conservative party....
2. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 19:55 · Score: 1
  
  It was Labour who signed that treaty. The UK is boned. On one side they have an authoritarian party, hard for the US, while on the other we have a coalition that is authoritarian and reactionary, with a raging boner for the US. Somewhere in the middle is the faint voice of people looking for representation, drowned out by an electorate largely more interested in finding affordable and god-awful sportswear. May Theresa May die choking on fog shit, followed by Blair and the rest of the soulless narcissists remaining in the house.
3. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Sique · 2012-07-02 20:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So the UK will extradite car driving women to Saudi Arabia, where it's illegal for women to drive, for better oil purchase conditions too?
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
4. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 20:11 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  And to complete it, you have Hollywood, which rules them all.
5. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by tehcyder · 2012-07-02 20:17 · Score: 2
  
  Tony Blair is not the Labour Party, thank God. He is not left wing, never mind socialist. Most left wingers in Britain are opposed to US foreign policy, and would happily see him indicted for war crimes following his decision to support Bush in Iraq.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
6. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 20:34 · Score: 0
  
  As opposed to the opposition party which is so pro USA.
7. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Zemran · 2012-07-02 20:35 · Score: 1
  
  Tony Blair was the best thing that ever happened to the Conservative party. He did more for them than Margaret Thatcher etc. put together.
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
8. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by A+beautiful+mind · 2012-07-02 20:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Absolutely. The UK sent people to Libya while Gaddafi was still in power in exchange for lucrative business opportunities.
  
  --
  It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
  Be yourself no matter what they say
9. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 20:52 · Score: 0
  
  The "Special Relationship" between the UK and the US was a termed coined by Winston Churchill in the aftermath of World War 2. Subsequent UK governments have highlighted their pro-US stance, particularly Margaret Thatcher the leader of the Conservative party who was in power from 1979 to 1990.
  In 1997 the UK Labour party came into power, headed by Tony Blair. When war was declared in Afghanistan in 2001 following 9/11, in keeping with the special relationship the UK sent the second-largest military force to Afghanistan.
  In 2003, the UK's entrance into the Iraq war caused a storm of controversy at home and abroad. "Leftist" politicians and a large percentage of Britain's population were outraged at what they considered to be an "illegal war". Blair's friend Rupert Murdoch published a special edition of "The Sun" (Britain's largest tabloid newspaper) titled "Chirac is a worm", referring to the French Premier's resistance to starting a new war in Iraq with an international coalition force.
  Tony Blair ultimately sent the only other significant force to Iraq comprised of 45,000 soldiers, compared to the US troop commitment of 148,000 troops. These events caused a severe blow to the UK's world standing that outweighed any possible gratitude that the US could have shown for the UK's support.
  2003 was the year that Tony Blair became widely known as George W's Poodle. An interesting quote from wikipedia:
  Along with enjoying a close relationship with Bill Clinton, Blair formed a strong political alliance with George W. Bush, particularly in the area of foreign policy. At one point, Nelson Mandela described Blair as "the U.S. foreign minister". Blair has also often openly been referred to as "Bush's poodle". Kendall Myers, a senior analyst at the State Department, reportedly said that he felt "a little ashamed" of Bush's treatment of the Prime Minister and that his attempts to influence US policy were typically ignored: "It was a done deal from the beginning, it was a one-sided relationship that was entered into with open eyes... There was nothing, no payback, no sense of reciprocity" /interesting quote
  The weakness of the UK Liberal and Conservative parties meant that Tony Blair remained secure as Prime Minister, until he voluntarily made way for Labour's Gordon Brown in 2007.
  That's the historical backdrop for the point I wished to make, which is that Tony Blair did ultimately benefit greatly from his loyalty to the USA. He has amassed a fortune of 60 million pounds mostly since leaving office. The US bank JP Morgan Chase are reportedly paying him over $3 Million/year for his services as a "consultant", and he has a number of other highly lucrative similar posts.
  So in conclusion, it is rather disingenuous to claim that the Conservatives are the UK's pro-US party, when in reality Tony Blair's Labour Party can be seen historically as the most pro-US UK government there has ever been.
  Disclaimer: I dislike the Labour and Conservative parties equally, and I hold the belief that Blair deliberately committed certain acts during his Premiership in the belief that he would receive significant rewards for them after he stood down.
10. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by gnasher719 · 2012-07-02 22:16 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  So the UK will extradite car driving women to Saudi Arabia, where it's illegal for women to drive, for better oil purchase conditions too?
  No, because (1) driving a car is not illegal according to UK law, so you wouldn't be extradited even if it was proven that she drove in Saudi Arabia. (2) because driving a car in the UK happens in the UK and has no effect outside, so she can't be extradited, just as even murdering a Saudi Arabian citizen in the UK would't get her extradited. (3) possibly not because it would be checked what is the punishment in Saudi Arabia vs. the punishment say for driving without a license in the UK, and if the punishment is deemed excessive, no extradition (so she would likely not be extradited for a proven theft in Saudi Arabia). (4) I don't know if there is an extradition treaty. (5) It can be decided that that extradition itself is a punishment which is too harsh for the crime, so you wouldn't be extradited for jumping a red traffic light in the USA, even when proven, even when the punishment is the same as in the UK.
11. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by bhtooefr · 2012-07-02 22:26 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  The Republicans here in the US are often approaching Europe's right-wing terrorists, actually.
  Literally, a lot of the right-wing rhetoric that gets spewed wouldn't look out of place in Breivik's manifesto.
12. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 23:02 · Score: 0
  
  Right, except Thatcher won 3 general elections without Blair's help, and Cameron hasn't won any.
13. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 23:28 · Score: 0
  
  Short version: watch the cartoon videoclip "Shoot the Dog" by George Michael.
14. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 23:42 · Score: 0
  
  If they committed the crime in Saudi Arabia, maybe.
15. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by todorb · 2012-07-03 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  No, because...
  did you notice what this story was about?
16. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Type44Q · 2012-07-03 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  In America you have the the Republicans, who are the equivalent of our Conservative party, and the Democrats, who are the equivalent of our Conservative party....
  Both are definitely conservative in the European sense (controlled by the elite, preserve the status quo, anti individual freedom) and yet technically both are also extremely liberal in the classic textbook American sense (controlled by the elite, promote big gov't, anti individual freedom)...
17. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Arancaytar · 2012-07-03 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's more like the Democrats are the equivalent of the Conservatives, and the Republicans are the BNP. So to be fair, there's a choice there even if all the options suck.
18. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Arancaytar · 2012-07-03 02:59 · Score: 2
  
  Take this guy, for instance - not some lone nut, but an influential and respected spokesperson. Bloody frightening.
19. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by whoever57 · 2012-07-03 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  In America you have the the Republicans, who are the equivalent of our Conservative party, and the Democrats, who are the equivalent of our Conservative party....
  
  This may have been true at one time, but I don't think it is true any more. I think that the issues that separate the Conservatives from Labour are largely orthogonal to the issues that separate the Democrats from the Republicans.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
20. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · 2012-07-03 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  Better example: it's like wearing a woman wearing a headscarf in public in the UK and being extradited to France! Seriously, we must have strong extradition treaties with France so why not?!
21. Re:Conservative party Minister: so pro USA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  Blair was the leader of the Labour Party, under whose watch the Labour appointed Home Secretary bypassed the Commons to sign that damned treaty as part of their "If Bush asks for a peck on the cheek, offer him anal" strategy. With them being kind of high up in the party, and with Blair having been their fucking leader for over 10 years, I think it's reasonable to lay his mischief at the feet of the party. Maybe I missed something? Is there an alternative history in which droves of Labour MPs fought against this treaty, perhaps resigning or defecting in protest? Was there a vote of no confidence called? Hey, perhaps they ousted him as leader?
  
  No they didn't. Some MPs, many familiar faces that had no future in the new party, continued to harry the leadership. Most though happily kept him as leader through another election, until his position became so untenable that there was no option left but for him to step down. Labour diminished their claim to being left wing when Blair was given the job, and confirmed this by keeping him in power for so long. "Third way" my aching arse. He was a deceptive cunt of a man, blending his religion with his politics, supported sectarianism, dragged us in to a war without solid evidence (I agree Hussein needed to be removed, but not based on Bush's rationale), and was happy to offer up UK citizens and her guests as supplication to the U.S. He made the party electable by dragging it way too far from its traditional base. That's what they want, sure, let them have it.
  
  I do agree on seeing Blair indicted, and I only wish a treason charge were possible for his dealings with that fucking lunatic in the White House. Shit, we'd see CEOs get far worse if they were found to offering preferential treatment to their chums, to the detriment of the corporation.
Swap Richard for Bob Diamond by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 19:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Bet they don't extradite Bob Diamond for overseeing the fraud of vast amounts of money that may actually have done real damage to US citizens, never mind the UK and the rest of the world.
1. Re:Swap Richard for Bob Diamond by Builder · 2012-07-02 21:16 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Only one way to find out - get an American judge to issue an extradition warrant. It's not like we just ship them over because we think you'll want them - you have to ask first :)
2. Re:Swap Richard for Bob Diamond by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 21:31 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry we've gotten so used to pre-emtptive strikes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, New Zealand, that it seems a bit of cheek having to ask you guys first ;)
3. Re:Swap Richard for Bob Diamond by Xest · 2012-07-02 22:17 · Score: 2
  
  Yes well, we wont extradite a child rapist either who actually committed a crime in the US:
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9362298/Paedophile-spared-extradition-to-US-on-human-rights-grounds.html
  But create a website the Americans don't like? That's it, off to the US with you!
  Apparently a controversal programme is enough human rights grounds to prevent extradition of a paedophile, but the high potential for suicide (McKinnon) or the fact a guy will have his life ruined, and run a high risk of rape in a US jail despite having committed no crime in the US (O'Dwyer) isn't.
4. Re:Swap Richard for Bob Diamond by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  Bob Diamond is American though, so if he did damage US interests the avenue to redress is much easier.
5. Re:Swap Richard for Bob Diamond by mpe · 2012-07-03 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Bet they don't extradite Bob Diamond for overseeing the fraud of vast amounts of money that may actually have done real damage to US citizens, never mind the UK and the rest of the world.
  
  He hasn't even been arrested. Last I heard they just wanted him to answer MPs' questions. Probably the best reason for extraditing/deporting him to the US is that he's a US citizen.
Absurd by xenobyte · 2012-07-02 19:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

If a UK citizen can be extradited to the US for breaking US law outside the US while physically never setting foot on US soil, why don't we see people getting extradited to all sorts of countries for breaking their laws while sitting in our homes in our own countries?
Second, extradition is for serious crimes only. Why wasn't the request squashed as it's only related to a civil matter of copyright infringement, not a criminal offense?

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
1. Re:Absurd by gl4ss · 2012-07-02 20:02 · Score: 2
  
  because the "victims" claimed that it was equivalent of robbing 40 banks.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
2. Re:Absurd by TemperedAlchemist · 2012-07-02 20:05 · Score: 2
  
  Other countries don't have the MPAA/RIAA.
3. Re:Absurd by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2012-07-02 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  Second, extradition is for serious crimes only. Why wasn't the request squashed as it's only related to a civil matter of copyright infringement, not a criminal offense?
  It might only be civil in the UK, I don't really know. But the actual charges in the US are criminal, not civil. The MAFIAA have been steadily increasing the footprint of the criminal statutes regarding copyright infringement for decades now.
  
  --
  When information is power, privacy is freedom.
4. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 20:31 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Wait, that brings up a thought - why can't Greece extradite Jamie Dimon & Lloyd Blankfein to Greece for their "crimes" at defrauding the country into massive debt? After all, if the US can extradite someone for something as "horrible" as posting *links* to *other sites* that contain copyrighted material, *surely* outright financial fraud ought to be extraditable. :-)
5. Re:Absurd by Zemran · 2012-07-02 20:37 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  This treaty was created to aid with the extradition of terrorists and we all know that file sharing and terrorism are the same thing.
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
6. Re:Absurd by julesh · 2012-07-02 20:52 · Score: 1
  
  UK has a similar criminal copyright infringement law to the US; in this case the charge would be "infringing the right to "make available" copies to the public (either in the course of a business, or to an extent prejudicial to the copyright owner)"
7. Re:Absurd by N1AK · 2012-07-02 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  If a UK citizen can be extradited to the US for breaking US law outside the US while physically never setting foot on US soil, why don't we see people getting extradited to all sorts of countries for breaking their laws while sitting in our homes in our own countries?
  Because you have to commit a crime in the country which asks your goverment to extradite you. Thus you can't be extradited to face trial for selling nazi memorabilia in the UK even though it is illegal to do so in parts of Europe. However if you ran a web shop and were selling within a country where it was illegal you could be.
  
  Extradition makes a lot of sense in many circumstances. Hiring a hitman within America over the phone from outside America doesn't stop what you've done being a crime commited in America (blackmail would be and so is hacking). You can argue that we should never extradite anyone or that we should try people for crimes commited in other jurisdictions, both of which come with consequences, but whether the person was physically stood on foriegn soil or not really isn't that important.
8. Re:Absurd by Neil_Brown · 2012-07-02 22:01 · Score: 2
  
  "infringing the right to "make available"
  More probably the exclusive right of communication to the public. s107(2A), Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1977 (here):
  
  (2A) A person who infringes copyright in a work by communicating the work to the public—
  (a)in the course of a business, or
  (b)otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,
  commits an offence if he knows or has reason to believe that, by doing so, he is infringing copyright in that work.
  ...
  (4A) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2A) is liable—
  (a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £50,000, or both;
  (b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.
9. Re:Absurd by gnasher719 · 2012-07-02 22:20 · Score: 1
  
  Because you have to commit a crime in the country which asks your goverment to extradite you. Thus you can't be extradited to face trial for selling nazi memorabilia in the UK even though it is illegal to do so in parts of Europe. However if you ran a web shop and were selling within a country where it was illegal you could be.
  To clarify: You can and will be extradited within the EU for something that is a crime in one country but not another. So if you ship from UK to Germany, you can and will be extradited. If you ship from the USA to Germany, Germany will ask for extradition which will be denied; if you are then stupid enough to travel to the UK, you will be extradited.
10. Re:Absurd by Torvac · 2012-07-02 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  i heard some people in the netherlands smoke weed, isnt that illegal in the US ? what happens to people from the netherlands the moment they visit the US ?
11. Re:Absurd by HarrySquatter · 2012-07-02 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  Then maybe you better tell the Wikipedians that these organizations other than the RIAA don't exist.
12. Re:Absurd by SuricouRaven · 2012-07-02 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  And there's always the classic trick, too: Charge him with some form of fraud or tax evasion. It's often easier to get a conviction that way.
13. Re:Absurd by haruchai · 2012-07-03 00:12 · Score: 2
  
  I suppose it's because so many countries would want to extradite all those Wall St criminals, the US would have to ship them in pieces to make everyone happy.
  That's not necessarily a bad thing.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
14. Re:Absurd by Ash+Vince · 2012-07-03 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Second, extradition is for serious crimes only. Why wasn't the request squashed as it's only related to a civil matter of copyright infringement, not a criminal offense?
  Where are you getting that from? Actually there is no such exemption in the UK, extradition applies to every crime, not matter how minor.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
15. Re:Absurd by Ash+Vince · 2012-07-03 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  because the "victims" claimed that it was equivalent of robbing 40 banks.
  He did make about £140,000 over the years he was running the site.The fact that he pissed it all up the wall does not detract from this being quite a lot of money.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
16. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  Because you argument is fucking bullshit and you know it, so stop being a facetious cunt like the one in the article. You self-entitled little freetards like to bitch about how adding "on the internet" to existing crimes doesn't magically make them new crimes. And yet here we have a perfectly good case where some dickhead created a whole website devoted to providing people stolen content - *WHICH HE PROFITED FROM* - and you want to bitch that, even though copyright was infringed in its country of origin, and provided and available to people in the same country, that suddenly it should ignore all existing laws about copyright and jurisdiction because the crime happened to have taken place ZOMG ON THE INTERNET, where pirates and pedophiles are just supposed to roam free and easy and anything else is a violation of human rights.
  OH, but they were just links, you say, he's not responsible for content on other servers he happens to link to, how could he possibly know they had illegal content. Except for the fact THAT WAS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF HIS SITE. Would you say the same thing if his site was devoted to links to child porn? Of course not. Because let's face it, you don't really care if he was hosting pirated content, or linking to sites with pirated content, or teaching people how to download pirated content, or if he was linking to a website in another country that told people how to download illegal material from a different country. No, your only issue is that you don't see piracy as a problem, because it benefits YOU, and that's really all that matters. Never mind the people who produce the content, they clearly did so just for fun and not to put food on their plate. Never mind the laws (both civil and criminal) against it, you don't agree with them and don't need to follow them, all the cool kids are pirating these days. Never mind the dumbshit arguments you come up with to justify your behaviour ("herp derp movies these days are terrible; that's why I go through the trouble of illegally downloading them") or deflect the discussion to convenient red herrings ("they're only links!"; "piracy isn't a serious crime!"; "extradition is against their human rights!").
  Generation Me has really fucked us all. You like to pretend it's not your fault, always blaming everyone but yourself. I'm sure you've got some witty, pre-packaged flippant response that, in your fantasy world, would justify your support of piracy (if not your own contribution to it), or deflect the argument elsewhere (look hard, maybe you'll find a typo in my post that makes piracy ok again), or shift the blame to 'someone else' ("it's Teh Evil MAFIAAAAAAAAA, they MADE me do it!"), or try to disregard the impact of piracy ("according to some arbitrary definition of 'steal' I just made up, it's not stealing because no one is deprived of stuff, it's 'copyright infringement'"; "piracy is ok because they still make tonnes of money anyway"; "it's just copying, what harm could it do?" [see also: counterfeit money]).
  But that doesn't change the fact that I can't listen to a new song that isn't autotuned pop crap, because it's cheap, requires no talent, and morons keep downloading it anyway.
  Or watch a movie that isn't a sequel filled with craptacular CGI substituting for a decent story, because it makes the most money with the least risk.
  Or play a video game that doesn't associate itself with the terms "MMO", "freemium", "DLC" or "ad-supported", because that was the game industry's response to repeated calls by pirates to "adapt or die", and it unfortunately works well enough. But hey at least I'm lucky enough to even play games at all now with all the studios closing down, which I must surely be imagining since I keep being told piracy is a victimless crime that only ever helps the industry.
  All these industries have adapted, like you assholes kept dictating them to (because apparently, "free market capitalism" now means "run your business how the selfish anarchist vocal minority tells you to, or they'll wreck your shit"). They may well be surviving the era of piracy. But I sure as hell don't recognise them anymore.
17. Re:Absurd by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  The majority of us in the US would LOVE for you to extradite them. (In pieces would be all the better.) The mega-investment bankers have done nothing but devalue the US dollar while lining their own pockets.
18. Re:Absurd by UnknownSoldier · 2012-07-03 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah I know YHBT and DNFTT
  WOW you sure seem to get bent out of shape at other people copying numbers ....
  You DO realize that some countries (Canada) legally ALLOW people to copy copyrighted works, right? So basically the 30 million people are all "freetards" too or are you too self-absorbed in "my politics are the only RIGHT politics" to pull your head out of your ass and realize that ALL {LEGAL} LAWS ARE RELATIVE. The youth couldn't give a crap about copyright because they realize the absurdity of trying to "outlaw copying numbers." You can bitch all you want but copyright is an archaic idea on its way out.
19. Re:Absurd by nukenerd · 2012-07-03 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  because the "victims" claimed that it was equivalent of robbing 40 banks.
  He did make about £140,000 over the years he was running the site.The fact that he pissed it all up the wall does not detract from this being quite a lot of money.
  If I robbed 40 banks I would expect to make far more than £140,000 out of it. Where is your ambition?
20. Re:Absurd by Mana+Mana · 2012-07-03 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  >If [the UK can] extradite to the US for breaking US law >outside the US ... ... why are alleged double rapist Julian Assange, and the world-media* insisting that UK's extradition action is proxy extradition via Sweden to USA---when the UK can do that itself---if---it---wanted?! Hmmm?
  * Assange overtly, the latter by omission and implication.
UK did not extradite... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 20:23 · Score: 3, Insightful

Be accused of copywrite infringement = UK extradite to USA
Be accused of rape = UK will NOT extradite to USA.
Umm excuse me but this just feels wrong.
1. Re:UK did not extradite... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  here is the reference http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/uk-extradite-man-accused-rape-minn-16674449#.T_KrLfHKmlg
2. Re:UK did not extradite... by Zemran · 2012-07-02 20:38 · Score: 1
  
  It is wrong - the word is "copyright"... It relates to the right to copy rather than the act of writing the copy.
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
3. Re:UK did not extradite... by gazbo · 2012-07-02 20:52 · Score: 2
  
  Going by the information in that article, I have to say I agree with the justices. That's a fucked up system you guys have got:
  
  The justices in London outlined a litany of concerns in their June 20 decision, noting offenders don't have to be mentally ill to be committed; their offenses don't have to be recent; and in some cases, they don't even have to have been convicted of a crime.
  
  As of April 1, 641 people were in Minnesota's program...some who say it holds people indefinitely after their prison sentences. One 64-year-old man received a provisional discharge earlier this year...Only one other person was ever released from the program, and was soon taken back into custody on a violation.
4. Re:UK did not extradite... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 20:55 · Score: 0
  
  If you're referring to Julian Assange, the US has brought no charges that are really crimes. It was Sweden, which the UK has an extradition treaty with. The UK would extradite if the US brought charges, but the US wants to secretly extradite him, torture him and hold him indefinitely without bringing any charges. They can't do this from the UK, but they can with Sweden. The fact is, he committed no crime. Leaking documents is not a crime, but they want to take him down with Bradley Manning without the legal system. Clinton is pissed and she wants revenge..
5. Re:UK did not extradite... by Rei · 2012-07-02 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  They can't do it from Sweden either without charges *and* without getting the stamp of approval from the UK, due to the EU extradition treaty.
  
  --
  Rock Us, Dukakis.
6. Re:UK did not extradite... by 91degrees · 2012-07-02 21:20 · Score: 1
  
  Be accused of a crime where you'll be tried to standards consistent with the Human Rights act, and you'll not be extradited. We won't extradite criminals if they'll face the death penalty either.
7. Re:UK did not extradite... by Rei · 2012-07-02 21:41 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  To put it another way: "4. Notwithstanding paragraph 1, a person who has been surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant shall not be extradited to a third State without the consent of the competent authority of the Member State which surrendered the person. Such consent shall be given in accordance with the Conventions by which that Member State is bound, as well as with its domestic law."
  Aka, it still comes down to whether a British court would approve an extradition request from the US according to British law. So either way it's up to British courts to decide on an extradition request for Assange unless Sweden wants to be blatantly and explicitly in violation of its treaty obligations on one of the highest profile cases out there. The Swedish prime minister has already publicly pointed out that it couldn't extradite Assange to the US if it wanted to without British courts handling the US request according to their own law.
  The only difference between Assange being in the UK and Assange being in Sweden is that he doesn't have to stand trial for rape in the UK. Despite all of the bluster to the contrary.
  
  --
  Rock Us, Dukakis.
8. Re:UK did not extradite... by L4t3r4lu5 · 2012-07-02 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  It would seem then, to a lay man at least, that the UK is attempting to set precedent for extradition to the US for infraction of US laws while not on US soil, just or not, as would be required for JA's extradition. I understand there are fundamental differences to each case, but since when did the government allow facts or common sense guide their decision and policy making?
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
9. Re:UK did not extradite... by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-07-02 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, Sweden has already assisted in the unlawful rendition and torture of foreigners...
10. Re:UK did not extradite... by gnasher719 · 2012-07-03 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  It would seem then, to a lay man at least, that the UK is attempting to set precedent for extradition to the US for infraction of US laws while not on US soil, just or not, as would be required for JA's extradition.
  
  "While not on US soil" doesn't matter, and has never mattered. In the legal sense, a crime isn't committed at the place where you are, but at the place where it has an effect. Now in the past these two places were most likely the same, but not always. Shooting a person on the other side of a border (which has actually happened), sending mail bombs, all meant that you could commit a crime in a country without stepping on its soil. And nerds may look at the location of servers in this case, which also doesn't matter. The effect of this crime was that someone in the USA ended up with a copy of software or movies or music that they didn't pay for, and that happened in the USA. Where the server is, or where the person running the server is, doesn't actually matter.
11. Re:UK did not extradite... by Rei · 2012-07-03 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  As has the UK, and much more egregiously. Your point? And are you so seriously into conspiracy theories that you think that they're going to "secretly" do anything in blatant violation of international treaties, with someone who's probably the highest profile wanted person on the planet right now? Especially after the Swedish prime minister himself has pointed out that Sweden would need UK permission?
  
  --
  Rock Us, Dukakis.
12. Re:UK did not extradite... by Ash+Vince · 2012-07-03 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Be accused of copywrite infringement = UK extradite to USA
  Be accused of rape = UK will NOT extradite to USA.
  Umm excuse me but this just feels wrong.
  Yup, but only the US will not get rid of the death penalty. We will not extradite someone to face a death sentence in the other country.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
13. Re:UK did not extradite... by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-07-03 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  As has the UK, and much more egregiously.
  Really? I didn't know that. Swedens involvement is well-known, I googled it before my post. I probably missed UKs involvement, could you provide linsk to newspaper articles? Of course, if the UK was just as involved in unlawful renditions as Sweden, then the OP's point wouldn't make much sense.
  
  Your point?
  My point was that the OP claimed that Assange would be kidnapped and tortured by the US if he goes to Sweden. I don't think so, but your reply was completely off topic (about extradition, which the OP didn't talk about), because you evidently didn't read the OP's post. So I corrected that.
  
  And are you so seriously into conspiracy theories that you think that they're going to "secretly" do anything in blatant violation of international treaties, with someone who's probably the highest profile wanted person on the planet right now?
  
  No, I'm not.
  
  Especially after the Swedish prime minister himself has pointed out that Sweden would need UK permission?
  Here again, you completely ignore what was being discussed. I don't agree with the OP, but your replies illustrate such a lack of reading skills that I felt I had to say something. :P
14. Re:UK did not extradite... by Rei · 2012-07-03 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Really? I didn't know that
  Really? Have you never heard of Google? Just to pick one article for you about a few of the many cases the Brits have been involved in: Link . The British are among the world's biggest players in this game.
  
  Swedens involvement is well-known, I googled it before my post.
  Ah, here we get to the root of the problem! You are a victim of Morton's Demon. You might want to see to that.
  
  My point was that the OP claimed that Assange would be kidnapped and tortured by the US if he goes to Sweden. I don't think so, but your reply was completely off topic (about extradition, which the OP didn't talk about)
  Again, see to your demon. The OP wrote (emphasis mine):
  
  If you're referring to Julian Assange, the US has brought no charges that are really crimes. It was Sweden, which the UK has an extradition treaty with. The UK would extradite if the US brought charges, but the US wants to secretly extradite him, torture him and hold him indefinitely without bringing any charges.
  Hopefully you can see the boldfaced words.
  Let me know when you're done with the exorcism.
  
  --
  Rock Us, Dukakis.
15. Re:UK did not extradite... by rahvin112 · 2012-07-03 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  The programs operate on the recognized fact that some pedophiles will never be rehabilitated and with re-offend at some date and it's simply better to commit them to protect the public. The gentleman in question has molested 4 children in 3 countries for sure and it's doubtful that's the limit of abuse. Frankly you guys can keep him, but you better damn well keep him away from your kids because he is going to molest again, he likely can't help it.
  I'm not saying I agree with it mind you. Just pointing out the logic used for civil commitment.
16. Re:UK did not extradite... by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-07-03 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Jesus Christ, I'm a trained scientist. I read huge amount of texts every day for a living, so you can kindly shove Morton's Demon up your arse.
  Yes, the OP used the word "extradition", but also said that the US wants to "secretly extradite" Assange from Sweden in order to torture him and indefinitely hold im without bringing any charges. If you think he meant "extradition" as in "official extradition, acknowledging official extradition treaties of UK or Sweden with the US", then I'm a bit sorry for you. (Not that I really care, I'm just wasting some time on /. instead of reading a paper...)
  But here is one thing you should perhaps consider for a moment if you have the time. Suppose a few years ago someone had told you that the CIA maintains a number of secret prisons in sovereign European countries, where they bring supposed enemies of the US whom they have kidnapped, subject these people to torture and hold them indefinitely without charges -- would you have believed that person?
  I certainly wouldn't have believed a word.
17. Re:UK did not extradite... by Rei · 2012-07-03 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  I read huge amount of texts every day for a living, so you can kindly shove Morton's Demon up your arse.
  If there's ever more a clear-cut case of "Morton's Demon", it's "I googled to verify my preconceived notion but never even bothered to google the most trivial of counterexamples". Aka, what you did.
  
  Yes, the OP used the word "extradition", but also said that the US wants to "secretly extradite" Assange from Sweden
  Hence the article about the British secretly extraditing, rendering, and all sorts of other nasty stuff in cooperation (and even sometimes in the lead of) the US. So your point was...?
  
  Suppose a few years ago someone had told you that the CIA maintains a number of secret prisons in sovereign European countries...
  Premise: Conspiracies have happened on Earth in the past.
  Conclusion: Arguably the most high-profile person accused of crimes right now on Earth is about to fall victim to a secret conspiracy in highly visible violation of treaties while the world is watching, and so should not have to stand trial against serious criminal charges like a regular person would. Even though the conspiracy would have made far more sense to have acted long ago.
  Sorry, but the logic train missed a few stops there.
  
  --
  Rock Us, Dukakis.
18. Re:UK did not extradite... by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-07-03 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  I read huge amount of texts every day for a living, so you can kindly shove Morton's Demon up your arse.
  If there's ever more a clear-cut case of "Morton's Demon", it's "I googled to verify my preconceived notion but never even bothered to google the most trivial of counterexamples". Aka, what you did.
  Okay, fair enough. Good point. I really didn't know that UK was involved in that, too. The funny thing is that I just heard a lengthy talk about cognitive biases yesterday. By the way, research shows that they are practically always in place and cannot be defated effectively by becoming aware of them. If you want to get rid of them, you need to use particular methodology like carfeully planned experiments or ACH.
  
  Yes, the OP used the word "extradition", but also said that the US wants to "secretly extradite" Assange from Sweden
  
  Hence the article about the British secretly extraditing, rendering, and all sorts of other nasty stuff in cooperation (and even sometimes in the lead of) the US. So your point was...?
  I was really just replying to your initial reply to the OP. I think, if you go back to it and read it again, you will recognize that you misinterpreted him -- as if he wanted to say that Sweden is more likely to officially extradite Assange than the UK. I merely suggested that this is not what the OP meant. That was my only point.
  
  Premise: Conspiracies have happened on Earth in the past.
  Conclusion: Arguably the most high-profile person accused of crimes right now on Earth is about to fall victim to a secret conspiracy in highly visible violation of treaties while the world is watching, and so should not have to stand trial against serious criminal charges like a regular person would. Even though the conspiracy would have made far more sense to have acted long ago.
  Sorry, but the logic train missed a few stops there.
  That wasn't at all what I intended to convey. I see some cognitive biases at work in your reasoning above as well. Just to make this clear, the only way to make educated guesses about the future is from past evidence. Your attempt to ridiculize this fact is not very helpful. However, I mentioned the CIA rendition cases merely in order to illustrate that -- although I do not agree with what the OP seems to have suggested -- his suggestion is not as irrational as it may seem to you, although I believe I agree with you in the Assange case.
  Have you ever read a history of the CIA? I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Just pick any book you like, as long as it is written by someone with reasonable academic credentials. You might get a surprise.
19. Re:UK did not extradite... by tobiah · 2012-07-03 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  "If you're referring to Julian Assange, the US has brought no charges that are really crimes."
  not true, they're just secret charges:
  http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/revealed-us-plans-to-charge-assange-20120228-1u14o.html
  
  --
  "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
20. Re:UK did not extradite... by tqk · 2012-07-03 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  The effect of this crime was that someone in the USA ended up with a copy of software or movies or music that they didn't pay for, and that happened in the USA.
  That is the person guilty of infringement, yet that's not the person who's in trouble here. You don't even need to extradite the person who infringed, yet they go after third parties in other countries for "facilitating." Do you honestly think this is going to change anything?
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
nt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 20:38 · Score: 0

did an accidental mod, removing them with a post.
Shit like this is how cynics are born. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 21:03 · Score: 0

Excuse me, I'm going to go throw up now.
Shock! Horror! by Builder · 2012-07-02 21:13 · Score: 1

Internet petitions don't change governments? Say it isn't so!
And to say that his fate is sealed is to ignore a large number of appeals routes he still has available to him. Hell, McKinnon is still here despite YEARS of attempts to extradite him.
1. Re:Shock! Horror! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  Current UK Prime Minister David Cameron came out in support of McKinnon before he was elected, saying:
  "Gary McKinnon is a vulnerable young man and I see no compassion in sending him thousands of miles away from his home and loved ones to face trial. I am deeply saddened and worried about the case of Gary McKinnon. I am saddened because he is clearly a vulnerable young man with a recognised medical condition.
  "I simply see no compassion in sending him away to serve a lengthy prison sentence, thousands of miles away from his home, his family and his friends. If he has questions to answer, there is a clear argument to be made that he should answer them in a British court. The Extradition Act was put in place to ensure terrorists didn't escape justice. It was never intended to deal with a case like Gary's."
  After making that statement, allowing Theresa May to have him extradited would be political suicide.
  Richard O'Dwyer OTOH has no such protection.
2. Re:Shock! Horror! by wonkey_monkey · 2012-07-02 23:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Current UK Prime Minister David Cameron came out in support of McKinnon before he was elected
  
  I've highlighted the most pertinent words.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
3. Re:Shock! Horror! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  He was still an MP and the "Leader of the Opposition" at that time, making him one of the UK's 10 or so most powerful politicians. It's not like he was Joe Schmoe posting a drunken rant on his Facebook account.
  The staggering hypocrisy of completely changing his stance on McKinnon would give his many political opponents endless ammunition. It would be cited in the next General Election as one of the main "reasons you can't trust David Cameron".
  The McKinnon extradition is just political theater - neither Cameron nor the US can back down, but ironically neither side really cares what happens to McKinnon. Cameron will simply string out the matter indefinitely - plenty of ways to do that when you're the PM.
Scary by Coisiche · 2012-07-02 21:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

As Dr. Ben Goldacre has just tweeted, "it's the little things like extradition at the behest of a corporation that make you worry the whole world is corrupt".
I think that ship may have sailed.
A Very British Putsch Emerges by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 21:17 · Score: 0

Dear dear dear dear.
And in time for the Olympian Games 2!
Oh dear dear dear.
The over reach of the US IRS.
Oh dear dear dear.
The Exchequer ... Harmony and Security of our precious ... Preciousness ... God Shave the Queen.
LoL
The ISPs were facilitating copying. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 21:24 · Score: 0

Windows facilitates copying. The web browser does too.
If the mechanism is irrelevant, why are they not equally culpable?
1. Re:The ISPs were facilitating copying. by 91degrees · 2012-07-02 21:39 · Score: 2
  
  If the mechanism is irrelevant, why are they not equally culpable?
  
  Because intent matters.
  
  Did TV shack have substantial genuine use that did not infringe copyright? Perhaps but this is something that needs to be established in court. The web browser and Windows clearly do have non infringing uses.
2. Re:The ISPs were facilitating copying. by hairyfeet · 2012-07-02 23:12 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I would say YES because while i haven't gone to TVShack i have gone to others to see shows i have already paid for by paying for cable TV but simply missed because of one thing or another. I mean why the hell should i shell out money to build a fricking DVR or add extra drives so my PC can do it when i can just use the net to find a show i missed and watch it whenever?
  and I thought the whole point of the Betamax ruling was if something had a non infringing use even if others used it differently it couldn't just be banned outright? or did the cartels get that one tossed when i wasn't looking?
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
3. Re:The ISPs were facilitating copying. by 91degrees · 2012-07-02 23:28 · Score: 2
  
  I would say YES because while i haven't gone to TVShack i have gone to others to see shows i have already paid for by paying for cable TV but simply missed because of one thing or another.
  
  If you did this, you were infringing copyright. Perhaps this is a fair use exception, that's a potential defence, and until it's established in court as an exception, there's adequate evidence for a trial. Who knows; perhaps this case will form an important legal precedent.
  
  I mean why the hell should i shell out money to build a fricking DVR or add extra drives so my PC can do it when i can just use the net to find a show i missed and watch it whenever?
  
  Nobody's forcing you to do that.
  
  and I thought the whole point of the Betamax ruling was if something had a non infringing use even if others used it differently it couldn't just be banned outright? or did the cartels get that one tossed when i wasn't looking?
  
  The betamax ruling was that time shifting was not copyright infringement.
4. Re:The ISPs were facilitating copying. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  I would say YES because while i haven't gone to TVShack i have gone to others to see shows i have already paid for by paying for cable TV but simply missed because of one thing or another.
  Yes, because the rare exception clearly sets the standard.
  These days I literally feel dumber after reading slashdot comments.
5. Re:The ISPs were facilitating copying. by dgatwood · 2012-07-03 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  The betamax ruling was that time shifting was not copyright infringement.
  And it is reasonable to argue that time shifting is still not copyright infringement even if it involves someone else's hardware doing the capturing for you, followed by transmitting it over the Internet. In any sane universe, copyright infringement can only occur if you aren't already paying for access to that content.
  The uploader and the distributor, however, have no real defense because they do not verify that the downloader had a legal right to the content.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
6. Re:The ISPs were facilitating copying. by 91degrees · 2012-07-03 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  And it is reasonable to argue...
  
  It certainly is. That's what the trial's for! Making reasonable arguments. We need a trial first in order to make them.
7. Re:The ISPs were facilitating copying. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  I would say YES because while i haven't gone to TVShack i have gone to others to see shows i have already paid for by paying for cable TV but simply missed because of one thing or another
  If you buy a movie ticket and fail to make the show, that doesn't entitle you to a free copy on DVD.
8. Re:The ISPs were facilitating copying. by cheekyjohnson · 2012-07-03 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  That depends on who you ask.
  
  --
  Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
9. Re:The ISPs were facilitating copying. by uninformedLuddite · 2012-07-04 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  I am beginning to feel dumber just by visiting
  
  --
  The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
I admit, I was wrong ! by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-07-02 21:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

First, it was the case of Assange, and now this
The whole thing reads like as if the government of the United Kingdom has lowered itself to the level of being a servant of Uncle Sam
I always thought that, Great Britain, ...
- a place which gave birth to the charter of Magna Carta,
- a place where the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of round table
- a place where the Bard (William Shakespeare) produced his world famous plays

... would be proud of itself

... would take its own national sovereignty very seriously

... would never kow tow to anyone, for any reason ...
After witnessing what transpired in both cases, I have to admit, that I was wrong

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
1. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by CrackedButter · 2012-07-02 21:29 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Nobody in our government gives a shit. They are a bunch of cunts.
  
  --
  Jonathanjk.com
2. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by buglista · 2012-07-02 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  Sad that this is modded informative, but accurate enough. The last lot wouldn't have been any better in this case either I suspect.
3. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by alex67500 · 2012-07-02 22:29 · Score: 1
  
  I love how this is getting Informative mods... :-)
4. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by bluescrn · 2012-07-03 00:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They are a bunch of rich, greedy, overprivileged cunts.
  
  FTFY
5. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by The+Askylist · 2012-07-03 00:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It was the last lot that signed the extradition agreement in the first place. Why we are extraditing someone for "copyright" offences, which should really be a civil matter, is beyond me. I would have thought that the correct course of action would be for the copyright holders to bring a case for damages in the UK courts and take their chances. This lot, the last lot? They're all cunts by definition. An honest politician is all too rare a commodity these days - the web of intertwined lobbying interests seems to strangle truth at birth.
6. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by Ash+Vince · 2012-07-03 00:38 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It was the last lot that signed the extradition agreement in the first place. Why we are extraditing someone for "copyright" offences, which should really be a civil matter, is beyond me
  Simple really, it is not a civil matter as far as UK law is concerned. You are right in that he shouldn't be getting extradited but that is because he committed all his crimes in the UK, he should be prosecuted in the UK really. The thing is though, what he is accused of is still a crime over here (not a civil wrong or tort), otherwise we would not be allowed to extradite him.
  A better idea might be that we tried to get the law changed so this was not a crime over here. I am not 100% sure if the UK public would actually be in favour of us relaxing copyright law though and unfortunately some serious public support would be needed for this sort of change.
  
  --
  I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
7. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  The only honest politician we have is Dennis Skinner.
  Almost everyone else is rotten to the core.
  The bosses of the banks should be in jail (See e.g Barclays).
8. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 00:41 · Score: 0
  
  in the interests of gender equality i'd just like to add they're a load of cocks too.
9. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  The UK is run by politicians who only care about about their personal money and power. They have no principles. Offending their US masters would do nothing to increase their personal wealth so they won't do it.
  The above statement applies to all political parties equally. Any differences between political groups are cosmetic and exist solely to give the proles the illusion of choice.
10. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody in our government gives a shit. They are a bunch of cunts.
  True but I'd extend that statement to any possible democratically elected government from any current political party within the UK.
  They all lie and lie to get in power and when elected they forget all their campaign promises and fiddle their expenses instead.
11. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by crazyjj · 2012-07-03 02:31 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The UK is run by politicians who only care about about their personal money and power.
  
  You just described every politician in every country in the world.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
12. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by yacc143 · 2012-07-03 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  He commited it in the UK. So why not try him in the UK?
13. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by snakeplissken · 2012-07-03 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  The guy committed a crime so he should be punished - that's the way it works.
  so we should extradite gay people to certain african countries because over there being gay is a crime?
  o'dwyer didn't commit a crime in th uk according to uk law, what the us thinks about it should be irrelevant.
14. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  You could boycott everything remotely related to the cartels behind these shenanigans to send a strong message -- you know it worked for a half naked guy in bringing the Empire to its knees! And we are not even talking about as an essential thing as salt.
15. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by horza · 2012-07-03 10:57 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  That's not really true. Cameron has done a lot of good things. Junked the DNA database, repealed some of the drastic anti-terror laws, killed the ID card scheme, and stopped the unifying of all the government databases. They are making good headway to repairing the wanton destruction of civil liberties by Brown and Blair.
  Currently it's the justice system, independent of the government, that is showing itself to be either broken or corrupt. A government crying shy of meddling with an independent justice system is not necessarily a bad thing, and in fact highlights a broken justice system where the US can get Assange fast-tracked into solitary and a throw a teenager creating a tv fan web site into the a foreign corporate-sponsored jail cell.
  Phillip.
  
  --
  Property for sale in Nice, France
16. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by Michael+Hunt · 2012-07-03 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck off. The guy committed a "crime" in the UK, and was neither physically present nor controlled assets in the US.
  What you're suggesting is directly analogous to the UK home office extraditing someone to Saudi Arabia for talking shit on a UK website about Muhammad (PBUH.)
  
  --
  You're doing it wrong.
17. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by buglista · 2012-07-03 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  "- a place where the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of round table"
  
  That's horseshit we feed to tourists I'm afraid.
18. Re:I admit, I was wrong ! by CrackedButter · 2012-07-07 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  All those things were public services which would have increased the state (which is popular for conservatives to not do anyway), granted he got rid of them, but wasn't that because the state of the government's budget was the priority and they were not popular anyway (plus this was at the beginning of their government)? But this is different as it involves the Americans and that's probably enough since this government has always towed the line with regard to US interests.
  Also our justice system didn't have a problem with O'Dwyer. I'm confused.
  
  --
  Jonathanjk.com
And the copy right owners still have the right. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 21:31 · Score: 0

Therefore no crime.
Copyright has to be shown to fall under the criminal statute. Which is difficult. And the proof needs to be beyond reasonable doubt, which is harder. Therefore what I predict will happen is that he gets extradited to face a criminal charge without it being shown it's a crime here in the UK to do so, whereupon the criminal charge will be dropped and the civil crime used when he's already in the USA and doesn't have a chance to go home.
Lap Dogs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 21:43 · Score: 1

It wouldn't be so bad that foreign governments are lap dogs of the US government - if the US government wasn't the lap dog of lobbyists and big money political donors.
Ciaran Tobin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 21:57 · Score: 0

In related news Mr. Ciaran Tobin from Ireland still hasn't served any time for a car accident he caused KILLING 2 CHILDREN in Hungary.
The Hungarian courts sentenced him to 3 years during which he "left" Hungary on the grounds that his assignment ended, and the Irish supreme court decided against extradition.
Despite efforts of the Hungarian authorities, and despite the fact that Mr. Tobin actually offered to serve the 3 years in Ireland, no justice has been served.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0620/1224318257596.html
Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 22:04 · Score: 1, Informative

The OP was right: the Democrat is right wing in most of the rest of the world, the Republican are Extreme Right wing.
1. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by BlueStrat · 2012-07-02 22:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The OP was right: the Democrat is right wing in most of the rest of the world, the Republican are Extreme Right wing.
  That's because the US was formed by the "radicals" of the 1700's-1800's. The Founders were the OWS of their time. They deliberately chose to avoid the type of central-authority-heavy types of government they were familiar with in Europe that severely restricted individual freedom and kept people mostly restricted to their own socio-economic class, and came at the idea of a central government as simply a necessary evil that should be given only those powers and control over only enough wealth to carry out the bare functions of a national government, and leaving most all other governing to the States and local authorities in order to promote a diverse system where one can find a place that generally governs in a way to suit a particular individual or group.
  This totally different outlook caused America to be the place and the culture that so many people around the world wanted to be like and/or immigrate to and become part of for so many decades.
  So, of course, Europeans would see the US political landscape as extremist. It is. Or, at least, it was.
  Not so much anymore.
  More's the pity, too.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
2. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by SuricouRaven · 2012-07-02 23:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  While the modern conservatives believe that a central government should be given enough power to carry out only the bare functions of a national government... except for where drugs are concerned. And banning gay marriage. And regulation of pornography. And broadcast indecency. And funding of abstinance-only programs. And endorsing Christian religion through large taxpayer-funded displays and monuments. And restricting abortion. And about a thousand other things. The social conservatives started drowning out the political conservatives a long time ago.
3. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 23:12 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, no.
  The USA was founded by religious and political lunatics that were expelled from Europe as being bat shit crazy (Look up Puritans, Quakers, Shakers etc).
  The USA was always considered a backwards, "Johnny come lately" until the Europeans had the bad sense to blast themselves flat twice in 20 years. This left a vacuum that the two backwards powers (USA and USSR) swept in to fill.
  America was the focus for immigration as compared to living in a bombed out hole in the ground in the Motherland it was seen as a step up....of course the rich, cultured and sophisticated Europeans generally stayed put, it was the semi-literate pig herders that decided to up and move to "seek a better life".
  You need to get out more, stop watching Hollywood.
4. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-07-02 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  Which is funny, given that, say, a Danish conservative would be considered a left-wing socialist or communist in the US.
5. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 05:44 · Score: 0
  
  Can we just cut the chit-chat and admit what we all learned a long time ago, that by and large, American conservatives are fascists?
6. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by BlueStrat · 2012-07-03 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  While the modern conservatives believe that a central government should be given enough power to carry out only the bare functions of a national government... except for where drugs are concerned. And banning gay marriage. And regulation of pornography. And broadcast indecency. And funding of abstinance-only programs. And endorsing Christian religion through large taxpayer-funded displays and monuments. And restricting abortion. And about a thousand other things. The social conservatives started drowning out the political conservatives a long time ago.
  That sounds more like the mainstream Republicans and.or the "compassionate Conservatism"/neocon crowd, which are really just less radical Progressives, but Progressives nonetheless, as they're attempting to promote their own social-engineering goals through force of government just as Progressives are. I've always viewed Conservatives as more of a practical, real-world version of small-"L" libertarians.
  I never did understand the reasons why so many young people these days rally behind the Progressives, rather than a more libertarian view. Progressives stand for a big, authoritarian government to control everyone and everything. It's like going; "Yay for 'The Man', Less Freedom, More Government Control, and Jackboots!". I can identify more with the anarchists than I can those types.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
7. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  I agree with most of your argument, but OWS? Seriously? I am very interested where you got the impression that OWS was dedicated to individual freedom. OWS primary message is focused on class warfare, in direct contradiction to individual freedom.
8. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by SuricouRaven · 2012-07-03 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Because US politics gives them only two real options: The government-rules-your-life Democrats, or the praise-the-lord-and-pass-the-ammo Republicans. It's really a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. And they both sell out to any special interest that waves some campaign money in their direction.
9. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  When you lose the battle against the federal government even having a particular authority, then the only option you have is to fight for your own morality as opposed to someone else's.
10. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by BlueStrat · 2012-07-03 07:32 · Score: 2
  
  I agree with most of your argument, but OWS? Seriously? I am very interested where you got the impression that OWS was dedicated to individual freedom. OWS primary message is focused on class warfare, in direct contradiction to individual freedom.
  Yeah, well, you've got a point.
  I guess I was trying to point out something contemporary young people today are familiar with protest-wise, and make a case that the founders were the "radicals" of their day.
  These days you're called radical if you simply advocate for the government to stick to the deal that's in writing (the US Constitution) and for more individual freedom, instead of some type of collectivist view that has government making choices for you.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
11. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  "The social conservatives started drowning out the political conservatives a long time ago."; or maybe the political conservatives have exploited the values of the social conservatives to engineer a political hegemony which actualy works against the best interest of the socials? The politicals have sacrificed traditional American progressive economic values on the altar of social conservatism.
  My children cannot look forward to a better life that me because of the political conservatives drum beating over abortion and gay marriage and drowing out the real issues of social and economic justice.
12. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by BlueStrat · 2012-07-03 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, no.
  The USA was founded by religious and political lunatics that were expelled from Europe as being bat shit crazy (Look up Puritans, Quakers, Shakers etc).
  Yeah, the USA was founded by the very first people to arrive and try to form settlements and colonies the same way that Germany and France were founded by primitive tribesmen that migrated up from Mesopotamia and killed off/bred-out the Neanderthals. If you try to tell me that the famously-lecherous Ben Franklin was some kind of Puritan nutcase, I'll laugh in your face.
  But who needs facts and stuff when there's a good America-bashing to be had?
  
  You need to get out more, stop watching Hollywood.
  *You* need to get out more and read some actual history, and stop listening to and believing everything Liberal/Progressive nutcases tell you about their "revised" history.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
13. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  To quote a random Slashdot poster, "Conservatives want a government that is just small enough to fit into your bedroom."
14. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by tqk · 2012-07-03 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  I never did understand the reasons why so many young people these days rally behind the Progressives, rather than a more libertarian view.
  The Hippies of the Sixties and Seventies grew up to be the Progressives. There's not a lot of difference between the two. Both believe Freedom is best enacted via Big Government edict. After all, it was the Feds who forced desegregation on the South. How else could it have been done? They equate Libertarian with Big Business corporatism. They're shallow thinkers with little to no comprehension of history.
  
  --
  "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
15. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by BlueStrat · 2012-07-03 12:53 · Score: 1
  
  ...the real issues of social and economic justice.
  "Social Justice(tm)" and "Economic Justice(tm)" are simply different facets of redistributionist/collectivist Marxist-type ideology, a type of ideology and set of principles that have failed miserably every time they've been tried. Usually with a cost measured in tens of millions of lives.
  Not big selling points. Yet, people keep thinking it "just hasn't been done quite right yet" and/or "it hasn't been marketed right".
  Sorry, but power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and a powerful central government places incredible power in the hands of a very few corruptible, imperfect people susceptible to every bit and type of human weakness and capacity for evil that any random person may have. It simply never turns out well.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
16. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by Falconhell · 2012-07-03 13:44 · Score: 1
  
  Because libertarians are deluded morons I suspect, and young people can see thru the hollow selfish nature of the libertarians.
17. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 15:14 · Score: 0
  
  selfish nature of the libertarians
  Do you have *any* slight hint of a clue about what an idiot you just made of yourself with that gem of an oxymoron...moron?
  Some people are smart. Some people are stupid. Some people like yourself start to believe themselves so smart they make themselves drooling idiots.
  Here's your bib.
18. Re:Most of the world has no Republican equivalent by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 19:11 · Score: 0
  
  No, really you're just an idiot whose preconceived notions have inhibited your critical thinking skills. There is nothing about the progressive movement that aligns with big government, but you'll just go on to keep believing that because you can't think for your self.
Legal risk for innovation by Yvanhoe · 2012-07-02 22:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Congratulation, media industries : you clearly made your point : innovation in media content distribution will not be tolerated, even if it is done according to the laws.

If you were not already boycotting the people behind this, I think you can begin now.

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
1. Re:Legal risk for innovation by Yvanhoe · 2012-07-04 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  Giving that for free is not a viable business model for media industries. I agree. Where can I go to have the same kind of exhaustiveness and pay the price ? Nowhere. That's my point.
  
  --
  The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Amazing.. great news ! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 23:11 · Score: 0

Hope he gets a nice little jail term. Funny how all these sleaze balls load up their websites with all maner of shitty advertisments and make money over content they themselves did not create.
Wikipedia Founder by necro81 · 2012-07-02 23:35 · Score: 1

Wow, this is a total shock. I mean, when Jimmy Fucking Wales got involved, I was sure the government was going to drop everything!
1. Re:Wikipedia Founder by haruchai · 2012-07-03 00:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  England never listens to Wales.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
2. Re:Wikipedia Founder by Inda · 2012-07-03 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Oh yes we do. We have no choice.
  
  First they come over here and steal our jobs. Then they wont stop singing about r-r-r-r-rugby, leeks, daffodils and sheep.
  
  The earplugs do nothing.
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
3. Re:Wikipedia Founder by Arancaytar · 2012-07-03 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  Should have put a photo of himself making a serious face. And titled his letter "A Personal Appeal From Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales".
4. Re:Wikipedia Founder by necro81 · 2012-07-03 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  England never listens to Wales.
  How could they? Everyone knows that Welsh is a made-up language, right up there with Sindarin and Klingon. No one actually speaks it, they just string some good sounding syllables together when they need it. Welsh has the added burden of actually being a cryptographic cypher, allowing plaintext to be transcribed into an unbreakable code.
5. Re:Wikipedia Founder by haruchai · 2012-07-03 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  That's good. When linux dev Alan Cox changed his blog to Welsh only, it did look to me that he was studying cryptography.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
6. Re:Wikipedia Founder by neminem · 2012-07-03 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  I really wish I had points to give you +1 (Funny) right now.
7. Re:Wikipedia Founder by haruchai · 2012-07-03 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks. It's the thought that counts.
  
  --
  Pain is merely failure leaving the body
My guess on the real reason by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · 2012-07-03 00:11 · Score: 1

As an American, I do think this is absolute crap. However, I've seen a willingness of both American political parties to cross lines that nobody ever dared to cross before so I can't say I'm truly surprised that the US government would push for his extradition while on the other hand not being very fond of the idea of having foreign laws apply to US companies in a restrictive sense. The real reason I think that the US government wants him is that I suspect he was making a lot more money on advertising than he has led on and that is what is really making this into a big deal. The US position is likely that he was profiting big time indirectly from helping people to infringe. That's basically what led tot he Kim Dotcom smack down as well.
Communique from Saudi Arabia... by 19061969 · 2012-07-03 00:20 · Score: 1

...To the Right Hon. Theresa May, MP from the Saudi Arabian Ministry of Religious Justice.
You have been flagrantly displaying bare shoulders, forearms and legs in public in the UK and are in breach of our decency laws. We hereby apply to have you extradited to Saudi Arabia so that you can receive a summary trial with the sentence of being publicly whipped.

--
bang goes my karma... again...
It isn't a crime here. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 02:02 · Score: 0

Sorry, you're wrong.
Plus, if it were ret-conned into truth, then he was in the UK, his servers not in the USA and therefore USA can only try him in the UK on the (putative) UK law.
The fact they haven't tried to get him arrested and charged in the UK is all the proof needed that you're talking bollocks.
Pornographic Pictures of the "Prophet Muhammad" by El+Fantasmo · 2012-07-03 02:09 · Score: 1

By the logic of the UK courts, if someone in the UK posts a pornographic picture of the prophet Muhammad and it's seen on the internet by anyone in a country where that's illegal, that person SHOULD be extradited upon request.
tvshack didn't put his service in the United States, individuals in the US used his service illegally. Once again, watch out gun manufacturers; you'll be responsible for the crimes committed with your guns. What if someone shot up a DVD production facility with a Colt gun and caused loss of revenue for members of the MPAA? It's clearly not the shooter's fault, since Colt firearms made a gun available to them. Treat the gun store as an ISP and you now have to go after Colt.
This story is false by jwales · 2012-07-03 03:03 · Score: 5, Informative

Theresa May has not said "NO" and indeed has not responded at all. The report quotes a press release that was issued before my petition was even launched. There has been no response to me at all so far.
Every signature counts as they are clearly feeling the pressure.
Jimmy Wales

--
Wikia
It gets worse.. by whoever57 · 2012-07-03 03:03 · Score: 1

Perhaps he should fight extradition on human rights grounds -- as a paedophile successfully did.

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
1. Re:It gets worse.. by whoever57 · 2012-07-03 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Whoops, that should have been accused paedophile
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
2. Re:It gets worse.. by mpe · 2012-07-03 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Whoops, that should have been accused paedophile
  
  Accused in the US, but actually convicted in Ireland.
This whole article is premature by ed_g2s · 2012-07-03 03:41 · Score: 1

Jimmy Wales has stated on Twitter 2 hours ago:

I remain confident that Theresa May will re-open the case in light of the public outcry. Rumors that she has told me no are false.

https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/220153861007081472
Not quite sealed... by Grumbleduke · 2012-07-03 05:49 · Score: 1

It would appear the fate of the tvshack founder is now sealed.
Aside from his appeal to the High Court at the end of this month, or the potential appeal to the Supreme Court, CJEU or ECrtHR after that... There are two sides to extradition from the UK; one is the political side (the government saying he can go, although they tend to need a good reason for refusing) and the legal side (a court finding that the legal requirements for extradition have been satisfied). If either fails, extradition doesn't happen.
Oh boy... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-03 11:57 · Score: 0

Dear The U.K.,
You're our colony, now.
Cheers,
'Merica
monkey fucker by Mana+Mana · 2012-07-03 16:26 · Score: 1

-2nd try-
> If [the UK can] extradite to the US for breaking US law
> outside the US ...
why are alleged double rapist Julian Assange, and the world-media* insisting that UK's extradition action is proxy extradition via Sweden to USA---when the UK can do that itself---if---it---wanted?! Hmmm?
* Assange overtly, the latter by omission and implication.
Meanwhile, rapists walk free by Eyeball97 · 2012-07-07 13:53 · Score: 1

Didn't the UK recently refuse to extradite a rapist, Shawn Sullivan, because "he will be treated inhumanely in Minnesota's justice system"?
Do something that's a crime in BOTH countries, get away with it.
Do something that's NOT a crime in your home country, get extradited anyway.
So the British government are basically sending the message rape is okay, but tell someone where to find an MP3 and you're fucked.
UK - The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Hollywood"