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."
And it does work both ways, but unevenly, I admit. Maybe the discrepancy has something to do with the US being a more victim-rich environment.
I have no problem with criminals who have committed extraterritorial crimes being extradited. The Internet is not some magical place where laws should not exist. If you're in Dallas and you hack into a server in England and commit crimes, then the question becomes, "where did the crime take place?"
Unless you want to see hackers who commit extraterritorial crimes tried in the Hague, and I bet you don't, there's going to have to be a discussion about how and where crimes like this are handled.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Laws should indeed not exist for the internet, u fsckin fascist
You know you've jumped the shark when your defence is "well, we're no worse than China or Russia!"
Of course, the US does have considerably more of their population imprisoned than China does.
He was in the UK at the time and subject to UK law so he should only be tried in the UK.
But he specifically attacked US entities. Effectively if we follow your reasoning this is becomes reduced to a state sponsored attack on the US by the UK. Now if he attacked indiscriminately against computers of various origins that just so happened to include US computers then I would agree with you.
That's exactly what happened here, except the order of the crime and fleeing are reversed. He committed the crimes remotely - he "fled" first, then (allegedly) committed the crimes.
There's a concept in common law states called standing. The crime was (remotely) committed in the U.S. The injured party is in the U.S. The (purported) criminal is in the UK. The injured party has no standing (right to sue) in the UK. Consequently, the correct venue to hold the trial is in the U.S. This is exactly the type of situation extradition treaties were set up to address.
If what he did was legal in the UK, then it'd be a different story. And I'd completely understand if the UK refused to extradite for that reason. Likewise if the UK felt there was insufficient evidence against him, then I'd understand if they denied the extradition request (c.f. New Zealand and Kim Dotcom). But if he'd be subject to trial in the UK if he had committed these acts against a UK citizen or UK government, then there's really no reason not to honor the U.S.' extradition request. I suppose the UK could grant the U.S. government standing and the broad right to sue UK citizens in UK courts for violating UK law outside the UK against U.S. citizens and interests. But I think UK citizens would prefer extradition to that.