Slashdot Mirror
Should British Hacker Lauri Love Be Tried In America? (theguardian.com)
A 31-year-old autistic man in the U.K. is suspected of hacking U.S. government computer systems in 2013 -- and he has one final chance to appeal his extradition. An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian
Even if Love is guilty, however, there are important legal and moral questions about whether he should be extradited to the US -- a nation that has prosecuted hackers with unrivalled severity, and one where Love could be sentenced to spend the rest of his life in prison... His remaining hope for mercy is a final appeal against extradition in the high court in November. Love's hope is for a full and fair trial in Britain.
Even if he is found guilty in a British court of the most serious crimes in the US government's indictment, his legal team estimate that he faces just a few months in prison. Failure means Love will be flown to a holding facility in New York, placed on suicide watch and probably forced to take antidepressants, prior to a trial. If he refuses to accept a plea deal and is convicted, he will face $9m (£6.8m) in fines and, experts estimate, a prison term of up to 99 years, a punishment illustrative of the US's aggressive sentencing against hackers under the controversial Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Naomi Colvin, from the human rights group the Courage Foundation, tells the Guardian that "Lauri's case is critically important in determining the reach of America's unusually harsh punitive sanctions for computer crimes."
Even if he is found guilty in a British court of the most serious crimes in the US government's indictment, his legal team estimate that he faces just a few months in prison. Failure means Love will be flown to a holding facility in New York, placed on suicide watch and probably forced to take antidepressants, prior to a trial. If he refuses to accept a plea deal and is convicted, he will face $9m (£6.8m) in fines and, experts estimate, a prison term of up to 99 years, a punishment illustrative of the US's aggressive sentencing against hackers under the controversial Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
Naomi Colvin, from the human rights group the Courage Foundation, tells the Guardian that "Lauri's case is critically important in determining the reach of America's unusually harsh punitive sanctions for computer crimes."
Of course not.
Hung drawn and quartered just like the fucks at Equifax. You're all part of the problem.
Why does the summary mention that he's an autist? Is it trying to suggest that autists shouldn't be held responsible for their actions?
What does this mean for people like creimer and AmiMoJo? Are they not responsible for their actions?
He must be very high functioning.
No-one should ever be extradited to some shithole they never set foot in. If he broke Britsh law, let him be tried in the UK by an applicable court. If the Americans claim he violated US law, give them a lecture about jurisdiction and be done with it.
No "ordinary" citizen can possibly afford the cost of invoking the american legal system. It is ruinously expensive and the entire prosecution system knows and relies on that fact.
As a consequence hardly any but the richest can even get as far as a "presumption of innocence" as that requires going to trial and the phenominal financial burn-rate that entails. So ordinary citizens simply have to take whatever sentence the prosecutors offer them. No trial, no evidence, no judgement - just "sign here" and then wait for your prison uniform.
And for foreigners the cost of mounting a defence is even higher. For crimes that weren't even committed on american soil the defence has to bear the added cost of transporting and accommodating any witnesses or experts they need to call. Even british millionaires have been broken by this system.
So in a country where "to be accused is to be guilty", there is no possibility that this guy would ever see justice. Either with or without being able to submit his autism as a defence or mitigation
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
No crime was committed on US soil. Consider that if China made a law saying no-one could access certain websites, should an American who never left their country be tried in China for violating that law?
On top of that, the US has a dreadful record of human rights abuses when it comes to the incarcerated and a legal system that funnels people into private prisons with the emphasis being on revenue generation, not rehabilitation. Their record in such cases is one of extreme and disproportionate punitive measurements enacted out of embarrassment caused to their institutions, not response to the crime committed. That alone makes the case for extradition indefensible, and Britain should refuse.
Of course: he committed the crimes against US computers, the crime happened there, so he should be extradited if the extradition treaty between UK and US provides for this.
A politician war criminal like for example, german nazis, have committed their crimes basically all over Europe and Asia, never set foot into the countries they attacked, the extermination camps were not in the German Reich either but in occupied areas, etc.. In the Nuremberg trials they still were sentenced to the harshest sentenced possible for these kind of crimes, even when they never set foot at the place where the crime happened. So there really is a lot of legal precedent for this.
If the US laws are too harsh, then this is a different problem. The defendant can't decide where to get sentenced based on the most lenient laws he can choose from. This is not what "in dubio pro reo" means...
When those country can match US power... Maybe.
Answer: look in the extradition treaty.
If you don't like "America's unusually harsh punitive sanctions for computer crimes", get your government to renegotiate the treaty.
He did not commit any crime while in the US jurisdiction so no. He was in the UK at the time and subject to UK law so he should only be tried in the UK. To do otherwise means that the UK has lost all sovereignty because then while in the UK you don't just have to follow UK law but also US law over which the UK has no control.
Extradition is intended to prevent someone committing a crime while in a country's jurisdiction and then running away to a foreign country to escape answering for it. If the US does not think that UK law is strict enough to prevent hacking attacks like this the solution is to block all internet connections from the UK not try to enforce US law on someone who has probably never even visited the US.
According to the FBI, Lauri Love and his co-conspirators caused in excess of $5,000,000 in damages in the U.S.. Even allowing for likely exaggeration, that's more than several average people combined would earn in a lifetime.
Had Love acted with government sanction, what he did would be considered an act of war. It is not reasonable to have him protected from the consequences of his actions.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Flogg the bitch, then pass her round-the-fleet. Then hang-her-high. No more malware from a care-bear needs a hair tear. Bet she's a "kicker ..."
The article gets wrong the priority of the U.S. Constitution and the statute he would be sentenced under. It is unconstitutional to give a cruel and unusual punishment. No U.S. law can permit it. If the sentencing guidelines would calculate a cruel and unusual punishment, it is illegal as being unconstitutional.
Given that the hack he is accused of carrying out for was defacing the U.S. Commission for sentencing guidelines, and protesting sentences against hackers as being too harsh, if he is convicted it is hard to say that he didn't know he had it coming. He would have actually studied up on the punishment before doing the crime.
U.S. Prosecutors will probably offer a deal: turn on your compatriots for a reduced sentence. Prosecution in Great Britain will have little leverage to force that.
If you commit a crime you need to face judgement for that crime. The issue usually comes down to where the crime was committed. When someone walks into a bank and robs , it's very clear where the crime was committed and where the accused will potentially face a trial.
The question of whether one should face judgement in one location or another isn't new. Mail fraud, telephone scams and other crimes have faced these same questions for generations. If it is determined based on historical precedent that the crime was committed in the US, he should face his accusers in a US court.
... for its crap security. This is not the first time that some mentally disabled idiot from abroad has been wandering around inside important systems. Last time it was 100% because the installation passwords were still in place. That is not hacking, it is incompetence. It is security that should be on trial not some idiot from abroad.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. fucking duh.
for breaking, sabotaging, and spying on European citizens, politicians, and banking and industry executives. Short of explosive weapons, it's literally an act of war.
AGREE!!!
It is the IT security team that should go to prison.
They took money under false pretenses.
Put that on the books and this crime will disappear.
For the UK to be bending over on this just shows what a bitch of the US they actually are.
Any government with any actual balls would defend their sovereignty.
The foreign must bring their proof to the accused' own country and the trial be hold there.
When someone from country A commits wire fraud to steal from someone in country B, where should they be able to be tried? If both countries have signed an extradition treaty, then they certainly ought to be eligible to be tried in country B for country B has an obligation to protect its citizens.
This is quite different from what was commonplace for many years where U.K. courts would punish foreign citizens (including Americans) for content they published *only* in foreign countries that was legal to publish in those foreign countries.
If Hillary Clinton had been nominated as was her right, then yes. But not now.
It's a bit like you ask a woman in a pub if she wants to go back to your place and she says "Nope, come back to mine, it's got a big bed" and then the next day you get accused of multiple rape.
What a fuckload of snowflake pussies you merkins are.
In any event, if this individual is extradited and sent to the U.S. and incarcerated there, a free name change should defintely be provided to him.
He isn't going to do well in the US Prison System as a male with a name like "Lauri Love".
There are cultural differences, and sensitivity needs to be applied.
1) Donate lavishly to politicians.
2) Maintain a network of political contacts.
3) Have a team of highly capable, highly paid attorneys.
4) Be wealthy.
A primer on how to avoid prosecution.
The US is, unfortunately, a country full friendly people but with a host of barbaric systems. Don't go there, don't allow your citizens to be extradited.
99 years! Fuck YOU!
But he wasn't in US jurisdiction, so it is possible no crime was committed.
No, war crimes exist because the whole point of war is to change the boundaries of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction can always be determined.
today diagnosis of many of these disorders is almost a crime in of its self. If there is reasonable evidence that he was involved then he should stand trial in the USA just as if an American was hacking UK computers. This is really a non event except for the fact he is saying he is Autistic and shouldn't be held accountable. American courts will take that into consideration too.
And the odd thing is that I've seen a recent outpouring of people in highly competent positions come forward and say that something isn't right.
I don't think Trump will allow a man named "Lauri" into the US anyway, so the point is moot.
So I am sure I will get a fair amount of downvotes but feel I had to explain a few things.
I have mild autism (diagnosed and all that jazz). He is using the condition as a get out. By doing that it means the rest of us with the condition have to work that bit harder. Sure we may each have our difficulties (different peeps have different symptoms) but we all are aware that hacking into computers of the three letter agencies etc is not going to end well. He knew what he was doing, without a doubt.
There is no "I can haz autism and hack anyone without repercusions??"
He didn't destroy anything. How is this an attack. They are attempting to punish him for trespassing which they say is horrible because it happened with a computer. You know they can't give him a jury of his peers in a foreign country, so why bother.
The game is already completely rigged so that the common man makes little difference. How do you think such bad choices for president got put into place in the first place. Powerful people want powerless people holding the reins of government, the easier to get their way. That is the current status quo.
You should have registered. Slashdot has this feature where you can mark other users as friends and after you made that analysis, it would have been nice to mark you up.
Not even close. US has been too harsh (Far too harsh) in prosecuting hacking but there have literally been people executed for hacking. To my knowledge, we as Americans have yet to match that.
To my ignorant, flat world, black and white, American eyes at least.
He didn't destroy anything. How is this an attack.
The same way rape is.
The US justice system is one of the most punitive in the world, if it worked you would expect lower crime there. Crime is higher.
Mind you the worst is the Philippines where the cops just go out and shoot suspects..... oh wait....
Just a note for those considering to register: you cannot delete posts or delete your account. You have no control over your account if you register, with the added bonus that slashdot will know more about you.
The crime was committed in the US regardless of where Lauri was. I don't know what you're smoking to think otherwise.
The Brits will fall all over their white guilt and release him immediately, with an apology.
Wrong country. That's Canada.
No, you're wrong and GP is right. You argue with "no single jurisdiction" with jurisdiction can always be determined. You don't fucking get it and should stay out of the conversation.
That's about Trump.
"Sir Scott Baker Review Of Extradition Treaty Find UK-US Treaty Not Biased Against Britons"
Thing is, he wasn't in the US, so UK laws take precedence.
If he hacked a US server without breaking UK law then he didn't break the law and it's unconscionable that he should be extradited.
If he hacked a US server and broke UK law then he should be prosecuted in the UK for breaking the UK law.
Otherwise you're basically stating that we should all be shipped over to Syria and tortured for failing to support ISIS.
To think he can get away from 'merica Justice. No worries though, we can find some child that will claim to be molested by him. Nobody will want to defend him then and we can get him extradited to the US to face punishments up to 2 years of probation. Muhahahaha the Brits will never expect us to tack on the hacking charges and give the bastard life!
Sincerely,
Uncle Sam
Seriously, are we not supposed to convict criminals that claim to be autistic?
Failure means Love will be flown to a holding facility in New York, placed on suicide watch and probably forced to take antidepressants, prior to a trial.
And in the U.K., wouldn't they take similar precautions to keep a high-risk prisoner safe? Would they deny him needed medication? Turn a blind eye to his suicide attempts?
Come on, these days it seems like nearly half of all school-age children are considered to be 'on the autism spectrum'... (in truth it's more like 2%)
Ken
He caused, through his direct actions, crimes to be committed on US soil.
If he put a bomb in a box and mailed to someone in the US from England, and that bomb exploded on US soil, killing someone, should he be convicted in the US for murder or be subject only to lying on the U.K. Postal forms about the contents of his package?
Ken
The us and uk have binding extradition treaties that surpass your naive opinions.
Of course he should.
According to treaty, it would be a crime in the UK as well as in the USA, so: Yes he should be extradited to face justice in the country to which he gave offense.
As for the argument of the potential punishment being too harsh... I doubt he would receive a slap on the wrist if he had hacked the UK government. Her Majesty does not take kindly to being fucked with, why should hacking her closest ally be forgiven?
come forward and say that something isn't right.
Usually it's their understanding of the facts. None of the "truther" arguments I've seen can survive even a casual impact with a moderately knowledgeable reviewer. They rely on technical ignorance of the public and resort to insults when that fails.
Firstly, INAL. Secondly, I clicked through some of the articles and had a read - all I see are "suspected", "alleged". He was not charged in the UK and an investigation dropped.
What concrete proof do they have. The UK government should be saying "We investigated it, found nothing, go away." - but they won't, they will hand him over like some sort of sacrificial lamb. Similar to the New Zealand Government did with Kim Dotcom https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/kim-dotcom-ultimate-timeline-ck-p-179008 in January 2012 - as a New Zealander I am still ashamed of that shakedown.
Just look at those tender eyes. He's got a childlike vulnerability about him that could turn a straight man gay. Put him in an American cell with someone HIV positive, and within a week, they'll both be HIV positive. Guaranteed. And that's almost a death sentence. It would basically be capital punishment - just for computer hacking.
If you can't do the time don't do the crime. It's that simple.
{^_^}
I may have this wrong but I believe that extradition by the USA has been requested because they won't try him in the UK, and if he were tried in the UK he could not be tried for the same offense in the US
If the UK Gov had any respect for its legal system it would not betray one of its citizens so cheaply. I think they have this big complex with the US.
He caused, through his direct actions, crimes to be committed on US soil.
By whom? He did something in the UK. He never did anything in the US.
If he put a bomb in a box and mailed to someone in the US from England, and that bomb exploded on US soil, killing someone, should he be convicted in the US for murder or be subject only to lying on the U.K. Postal forms about the contents of his package?
Neither. He should be subject to murder in the UK. That's where he committed the act. And possible the postal forms thing too, if that is a crime.
Yes, we should try love in the US, we have been trying hate for far too long already.
(whispers)
Wait, this is about a guy named Love? Never mind then.
The server didn't have any login credentials. It's like leaving the front door open for a few years and finding someone has wandered in and took a look around. Then wanting to chop the dude's head off because he saw some top-secret stuff you never secured properly. That's F-ing 'merica for you: mediocrity because nobody will notice until it's too late, then blowing up the messenger for pointing out your aren't as awesomely amazing as you tout yourself.
The missing piece, and the one that no one wants to admit, is that the former World Trade Center was simply not built to code.
All the bullshit about hot steel and melting buildings and the way they just collapsed like that: it's because they weren't built properly. And to be clear, I mean shoddy craftsmanship, poor materials, or a little bit of both.
American's have difficulty with this because they don't want to accept that they do a lot of things badly.