Slashdot Mirror
UK High Court 'Perma-Bans' Efforts to Extradite Lauri Love to the US (arstechnica.com)
The U.K.'s High Court will not send Lauri Love to face trial in the U.S. for hacking government computer systems. Instead they've issued a final refusal to overturn Love's successful appeal of his extradition, Ars Technica reports, "effectively ending the extradition effort permanently."
Love was originally arrested in the UK in October of 2013 after using an automated scanner to locate servers within a large range of IP addresses for SQL injection and ColdFusion vulnerabilities and then breaching vulnerable systems and installing Web shells to give him remote administrative-level access. He allegedly managed to compromise servers belonging to the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, the U.S. Army, the Federal Reserve, NASA, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Love's attorneys fought the extradition on the grounds that Love -- who has been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, severe depression, and antibiotic-resistant eczema -- would not get appropriate medical attention in a U.S. prison and would be at risk of suicide if he faced the potential 99-year prison term associated with the charges...
The U.S. had already essentially dropped efforts to extradite Love, but the ruling by the High Court now sets legal precedent that may bar future extraditions of British citizens on hacking charges. In a statement e-mailed to Ars, Naomi Colvin -- acting director of the Courage Foundation, an organization that has assisted Love in his extradition appeal -- said that as a result of the ruling, "there is now very little prospect of any British hacker ever finding themselves in the same position as Lauri Love or Gary McKinnon. Fifteen years of terrible public policy in which British hackers were left open to the vindictive instincts of US prosecutors have now been brought to an end."
Lauri Love told the site that with this ruling, "The era of the U.S. Department of Justice as world police is over."
The U.S. had already essentially dropped efforts to extradite Love, but the ruling by the High Court now sets legal precedent that may bar future extraditions of British citizens on hacking charges. In a statement e-mailed to Ars, Naomi Colvin -- acting director of the Courage Foundation, an organization that has assisted Love in his extradition appeal -- said that as a result of the ruling, "there is now very little prospect of any British hacker ever finding themselves in the same position as Lauri Love or Gary McKinnon. Fifteen years of terrible public policy in which British hackers were left open to the vindictive instincts of US prosecutors have now been brought to an end."
Lauri Love told the site that with this ruling, "The era of the U.S. Department of Justice as world police is over."
... because he might be upset at the prospect of losing!
Someone needs to remind the Brits that if Love didn't want to do the time, he shouldn't have done the crime. If he can't be responsible for his own actions, he needs to be kept in a facility where someone else is responsible for him.
Other than the precedence reinforcement (good thing), I don't see much news here. The US and UK would have done the same as the other if the situation was reversed. The guy didn't kill any one. And even if he had, the conclusion would have been the same both ways if he faced execution.
...sounds like it's open season on UK government computers for US hackers, or really any hackers.
I mean, if eczema (seriously?) is a medical condition for which one can be protected from extradition, I don't see that any punishment is much of a likelihood?
-Styopa
If this guy had hacked British government computers all around Britain and had been caught, he would easily have been looking at 10+ years or so in jail from a UK court. Hacking a foreign country overseas, apparently, is perfectly allowed though.
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Maybe, maybe not. The UK still has the concepts of "parole" and "suspended sentences" -- the broken American Federal prison system did away with those in the 1980s. The US "justice" system is too harsh for anyone other than a violent, hardened criminal to deserve it.
I say we laugh in the faces of people who think that non-violent criminals should be subject to the whims of the overly-harsh US "justice" system. Beating ill people -- sign of a true sociopath.
"He can do the time in Britain where he lives and was located when he committed the crime. That sounds much more fair..."
No it doesn't. While what the person did was illegal in both countries the parties harmed were in America. This is literally why we have extradition treaties. Furthermore, the basis for the rationale for not sending him to the US seems to be that if he's convicted he'll find US prison unpleasant. Not that he will be turtured, not that he will be excecuted, not that he would even face an unfair trial, but that he would not be happy in prison.
Also, some one please explain to me what "antibiotic-resistant eczema" is. I get eczema myself; it's very itchy, dry skin and I treat it with special moisturizers when it gets bad. The first deffinition i find on a search includes this, "The exact cause of eczema is unknown, but it's thought to be linked to an overactive response by the body's immune system to an irritant". As far as I've ever understood eczema it is not caused by bacterial infection so how can it be antibiotic resistant? On a (admittedly quick) search I could find no reference of this disorder.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Breaking into a foreign government's computer systems - perfectly fine under UK law.
Teaching your dog to give a nazi salute as a joke - you will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Looks like the UK has it's legal system in order.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
"Antibiotic-resistant eczema" is called "a convenient excuse to not do the Americans' bidding."
The problem is that US sentencing is too harsh, and he might be looking at what's essentially a life sentence, without possibility of parole (US Federal system did away with that in the 80s). He didn't kill anyone, there's no evidence that he did any actual damage. Too harsh. As long as the US system allows for the possibility of excessive sentencing of that type, other countries will keep pushing back and telling the US where to stuff their so-called "justice" system.
His crime wasn't hacking, it was embarrassing the U.S. Gov't.
There is NO excuse for having your public IP address space exposing well known, script-kiddie flaws. Every one of those Federal Agencies has teams of people who are responsible for securing their systems, not to mention external contractors performing penetration tests.
He didn't do anything creative, just run common scanners against a wide IP space, and run point-and-click tools. If he found all that with so little effort, you can bet others did, too.
SQL Injection has been the OWASP #1 for about a decade now.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Strange, you appear to think we should be scared of him or something.
It's not too late to close a golf course in Aberdeen.
UK takes cars of its citizens. Protects them from extradition, gives them tax-supported healthcare. The US? Land of medical bankruptcies, guns for any yob who can fog a mirror, killings by police, and excessive prison sentencing. US would have been better off if the "founding fathers" had been shot as traitors and it had remained a British colony. Britain even ended slavery 30 years before the US did.
That's a male name in Finland and apparently in Estonia. It comes from the Latin form of Saint Lawrence.
" Extradition treaties usually only require that the act be criminal in both countries. " not 100% true it may also require that the punishment be in the same order of magnitude or exclude specific punishment , e.g. see article 7 of extradiction treaty French-US where the death penalty must be excluded as possible punishment. . What do you know about the UK treaty ? If tehre is something similar and the announced prosecution goal is e.g. 99 years in the US or something in the order of magnitudes a few year in UK is not the same type of punishment. That is why even if there is a treaty between the US and many countries , you gotta look in the detail before stating they have no reason to not extradite.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
On one hand that's bullshit. A court if law should not function in such a way.
On the other hand, that sounds terribly reasonable until you actually look into things
From: https://www.theguardian.com/ne...
A) After an initial arrest the UK chose to not prosecute him at all for his crimes. Perhaps if the UK had sought to send him through their own legal system initally things would have been different.
B) He was facing a possible 99 year sentence in the US. If his crimes were as harmless as you state then it certainly would have been less. Take the case of Babar Ahmad ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk... ). He was extradited, sentenced to 12 years, and was released to the UK after only one year because of his cooperation with the authorities.
C) He's being accused of crimes far more serious than you make out. "...but the US government, which accused him of helping to orchestrate and wage cyber-attacks on official websites including those belonging to the Federal Reserve, Nasa and the US army between 2012 and 2013. Love, they claim, along with three other unnamed co-conspirators in Australia and Sweden, stole sensitive military data and personal information belonging to more than 100,000 government employees. He is wanted for crimes including conspiracy, fraud and identity theft in no fewer than three judicial US districts – the Southern District of New York, New Jersey, and the Eastern District of Virginia – a record unmatched by any foreign or domestic terrorist (but by at least one other hacker)."
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
"Unnamed co-conspirators?" Evidence seems strong in this case. Right. Maybe the US didn't actually present enough evidence that he should be prosecuted. It's not the first time that US prosecutors have gone on a witch-hunt based on flimsy evidence.
Babar Ahmed should have gotten zero time in the US and been tried in the UK. As heinous as supporting al-Qaeda is, his technical crime was hosting a website raising money for al-Qaeda on a web provider that had a presence in the US. Honestly, he owed the US no allegiance, and should have been prosecuted in the UK in the first place.
Extraditing him then sending him back to the UK was a big waste of US money and time.
Assange is still hiding out because he fears extradition to the U.S. This may prove that was never the case.
If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
The US in good faith went to work on an extradition treaty.
The US gov is going to remember how their treaty work got talked about by the UK.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Well, you certainly have a lot of unsupported and irrelevant talking points. At least you have made it clear that your priority is propaganda rather than shedding light on the topic.
We just differ as to the topic. The real topic should be the US "justice" system. Glad other nations are seeing its excessive harshness and refusing to play ball with it.
Your country still hasn't prosecuted this tool, but a comedian who made a dog video faces prison time for it. Is it now three police systems that ignored decades of systematic violence against young women out of fear of appearing racist, or have more cases come out in the last few weeks? Fix your own dysfunctional "justice" system before you complain about the US one.
Really, that comment is "insightful"? Do you deserve to have your house vandalized or robbed bcause you haven't locked every single door and window?
... because he might be upset at the prospect of losing!
Someone needs to remind the Brits that if Love didn't want to do the time, he shouldn't have done the crime.
The exact same "reasoning" can be used on Americans and why they should be subject to other countries' laws.
So you're okay with free extradition to other countries, including extraditing Americans who write Nazi apologism or symbols, make drawings of Mohammed, flirt with a married person online, or create a web site allowing people to anonymously poke fun at royalty?
If you want US laws to reach the rest of the world, but Americans to be shielded from other countries' laws, you're either irrational or a bigot. Earlier, when USA was the only real superpower in the Western world, they could get away with that crap. But Rome is falling. The rest of the world don't kowtow to an empire that once was, led by someone who makes Caligula look sane.
As an American citizen, I am sick of the U.S. Government being the world's bully and I really and truly hope that Britain takes action to make non-extradition a law. If the British Parliament feels the need to block extradition, then I support them 100%. The U.S. Government does all kinds of shady shit while standing on some kind of shale-based, moral high ground and it's time we get kicked in the teeth and reminded of our place.
""Unnamed co-conspirators?" Evidence seems strong in this case."
There are all sorts of legitimate reasons certain parties aren't named publicly in lawsuits. Your sarcastic cause for doubt is flimsy at best.
Also, I used Babar as an example of what might happen to Lauri Love if he were tried in the US. Whether Babar should have been extradited is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Want extradition? Present the full evidence, or bugger off. Not willing to present the full evidence? See prior sentence.
A) Whose to say what was sent over to British courts. We're just looking at the public stuff.
B) This is all stupid drivel. The court rulings do not make a single mention of the US not providing enough evidence. This tangent is irrelevant to the discussion.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Excessive sentencing is a good enough reason not to extradite. Glad the British court told the US where to put it.
"The era of the U.S. Department of Justice as world police is over."
In other words, extradition is an ex-tradition.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
The Hitler dog video guy hasn't been sentenced yet, and will likely either be fined or told not to do it again - suspended sentence.
I wonder what Kenny Everett would have recommended. (It would have been in the best possible taste, I'm sure.)
Sociopaths should be relieved of their US and/or UK citizenship and deported to Somalia, where they'll be cherished.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The British have this system called "fair trial". America might want to give it a go, some day.
There was a guy who broke into British government computers and Prince Philip's e-mail. Now, let's see, how much prison time did he get? Oh, yes. NONE.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Was there any legislative interest in serious hacking penalties in the UK after the NHS ransomeware hack? Hospitals nationwide were disrupted and lives were endangered. The dudgeon in the British online press was palpable.
While I'm generally a law and order kind of guy who thinks criminals deserve to be punished I find 99 years for what this guy is accused of as incredibly heavy. A lot of these computer hacking crimes especially have penalties that are ridiculously draconian for the level of harm done. I actually don't blame the UK, the guy was looking at a death sentence for hacking.
Wut.
Aaron Shwartz was threatened with 35 years for what was, at worst, trespassing. That's what the Feds do - threaten draconian prison terms that would make Saudi Arabia blush in order to get people to accept plea deals, saving the prosecutor the work of having an actual trial. That's why Chelsea Manning pled to a 35 year sentence despite it being a much longer sentence than spies who sold secrets for actual money after Obama's unlawful command influence in her trial - something that has gotten other soldiers out of discharges.
Sounds like you ran out of talking points and went to the old standby, wingnut butthurt.
What people need to understand is that the Internet brought with it the capability of committing a crime in one legal jurisdiction, while sitting in another legal jurisdiction. In this case, committing a crime in one country while sitting in another. One of the basic assumptions in nearly all our laws is that the crime and the perpetrator are/were in the same legal jurisdiction at the time the crime was committed. So they're not set up to handle these new Internet crimes.
Extradition treaties were created more for the case of a perpetrator of a crime in one country fleeing to another country. In those cases, it's clear the suspect committed a crime at the time, but up to the country he fled to to decide if it's something he should be extradited for. In Internet crimes, the person in one country may have been acting completely legally where he was residing, while his actions in a remote location were a crime at that location. The closest non-Internet analogy would be if someone in one country shot and killed someone in another country, when the shooting would've been justifiable in country but not the other.
When there's a mismatch between the two country's laws on whether the act was a crime, neither extreme solution works. If you do take one extreme and decide that the laws of the country of residence should always apply, then every country will simply make it not a crime to hack computers in other countries. And the Internet will break as everyone sets up filters to block all IP addresses outside their country except for certain whitelisted IPs. If you take the other extreme that the laws of the country where it was a crime should apply, then you enable a mechanism whereby countries with extremely restrictive laws (e.g. China) can reach out into other countries and imprison people who are acting legally there.
It'll take years, if not decades for our laws to grapple with and come up with some reasonable-sounding solution. I've been thinking of it on and off for years, and still haven't come up with anything which seems reasonable.
"Love was originally arrested in the UK in October of 2013 after using an automated scanner to locate servers within a large range of IP addresses"
Do you mean something like NMAP
Good luck hackers with the new world in which you cannot be legally extradited, when it means the CIA is more inclined to use "other means" to deal with you. Just ask Russia.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
He gets black-bagged and the Star Chamber treatment.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Six months in jail for that comedian's video is the exact analogue to the 99 years complaint regarding Lauri Love. Why the double standard?
No it is not. ...
But it is not the task of an extraticcction court to deccide if it makes a ccase for hacking.
If the US are so keen to get him convicted they should file a case in the UK
Simple as that.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
From: https://www.forbes.com/sites/t...
"Announced last year during the Queen’s Speech, the update to the UK Computer Misuse Act via the Serious Crime Act 2015 has caused consternation for two reasons. First, it’s terms are broad. For someone to have deserved a life in prison, they must have committed an “unauthorised act” and known that it was unauthorised, and will have either intended to have caused “serious damage” to “human welfare or to national security” or had been “reckless as to whether such harm was caused”"
Gee, it seems he's eligible for life in prison in the UK too.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Carmen Ortiz, you know you don't have to post anonymously, right? You can post your Nazi bullshit under your own name.
A country that doesn't let its war criminals go on trial in Den Hague doesn't deserve getting anyone extradited.
Period.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
To be fair, they COULDN't prosecute him as long as he was facing extradition for the crime. If they did, it would be double jeopardy.
That's not what double jeopardy means. Double jeopardy is when the same sovereign prosecutes the same person twice over the same actions. For example, in the US, it's not a violation of the constitutional rule against double jeopardy if a state (or local) government prosecutes a person over the same actions as the federal government, because the federal government is a separate sovereign from the state (and the state's subdivisions).
Look it up.. By all means, follow the references. American prosecutors' willingness to stretch sophistry beyond credulity to get around the Constitution is one of many reasons our justice system is so mistrusted now, here and abroad.
The principle behind that is much older than the Constitution, going back to the Roman Empire at least. Many nations have adopted that principle.
And so it would be a violation of his rights to try him in the U.K. until it was finally decided that he would not be facing trial in the U.S.
Did you read that page? It quotes an optional protocol of the ECHR: ""No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."
The UK isn't signatory to that part. Why? From the same page: "Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.". (Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar laws.)
If you misread the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, you might get the wrong idea: "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country." However, note the qualifier "each country". See, for example, this, but lots of other sources agree.
The UK isn't signatory to that part. Why? From the same page: "Double jeopardy has been permitted in England and Wales in certain (exceptional) circumstances since the Criminal Justice Act 2003.". (Scotland and Northern Ireland have similar laws.)
But since he didn't murder someone, get acquitted, and then boast about getting away with murder, didn't rape a child, or sell drugs to children, his crime just isn't that exceptional.
Exceptional means not routine. Not common, not usual.