World's First Warez Extradition Decided Soon 563
An anonymous reader writes "An Australian Court will soon determine whether US Law should reign supreme in copyright infringement cases that occur online. According to this article, a decision will be made in two weeks as to whether Hew Raymond Griffiths, also known as "Bandido", will be extradited from Australia to the US for running the warez group DOD. Slashdot has in the past interviewed one of Bandido's co-conspirators in the US, who was sentenced to hard time - but the question is, if Griffiths committed no crime in his home country, should the US be allowed to hijack .au laws? "
Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
How are you supposed to get anything done on the internet if you have to worry about not only the laws in your country, but those all over the world?
(Realistically, the laws in your country plus those in the US)
Re:Precedent? (Score:4, Informative)
Wouldn't you like to find out what precedent is in fact set before deciding whether you like it? The decision hasn't been made yet.
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Joe Webmaster from Anytown, USA hosts a site critical of Islam, or Kim Jung-Il, Castro and are found in countries X, Y and Z to violate some law regarding incitement, or subversion -- wouldn't an extrapolation of a decision favorable for extradition mean that the US would need to send Joe Webmaster packing to Uzbekistan, North Korea or Cuba?
IMO, let the US and AU work on their treaties regarding the honoring of copyrights and let AU prosucute violators in-house.
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely this is the only way to fairly do this. I mean, why should the US be able to force its laws on other countries and other countries not be able to force their laws on the US? If the guy actually gets extradicted, then I think that anyone running an anti Kim Jung-Il website should be extradicted to North Korea. I fail to see any difference in the situation, unless you start to try and rationalise whose laws are better, or more moral, etc. which is a completely subjective argument. There is a common denominator in what is acceptable, and unless you violate international law or the law of the country you reside in, then you have done nothing wrong. Period.
Of course extradition to North Korea, China, etc. of a US national would never happen as there would be an uproar, but it would be no different to what is happening in this case. How on earth is Australia letting this happen? Where is the "Fuck you" from the Australian government? Do they have any balls at all?
What exactly is it that has the US thinking they can boss the entire world around without pissing some people off? The US people should start to shift part of the blame for the current terrorist situation to their own government and their foreign policy. A few years ago I was keen on moving to the US, but I am so sick and disgusted with the actions of the US, I don't think I want to be a part of it. Johnny Depp had the right idea.
If Australia decides that the current situation is indeed a loophole, then pass a law that prevents this guy continuing with copyright infringement.
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they do not. They are the biggest bunch of limp-dicked , US Govt. butt-licking nancies elected in recent memory.
Given that our Government is such a bunch of moronic arseholes, it is really up to the citizens to tell the US Govt. to fuck off, so here we go
MEMO:
=====
TO: The Administration, Congress and Senate of the United States of America
RE: Extradition of an Australian national on charges copyright infringement.
Dear Sirs/Madams,
Go fuck yourselves.
Yours sincerely,
The People of Australia (sovereign nation last time we checked)
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Precedent? (Score:4, Insightful)
I bet if only governments asked for their nationals detained at Camp X-Ray to be returned, the US would put them on the next plane!
Joe Webmaster, or any other American citizen, will never, ever, not in a million years be extradited anywhere, no matter what they did.
No, its ok (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't protect our citizens held in Guantanomo because "We don't have the laws to prosecute them, and the Americans do" in the words of our foreign minister, Alexander Downer. To me, if there is no law against it, he was not doing something illegal. It may have been morally questionable, but not illegal, to attend a merc training camp in a foreign country. Not fighting for the 'other side', just being there.
We were aforefront member of the coalition of the willing, and..
grrr
Sorry, this stuff just makes me mad.
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Informative)
Extracted from the US to:
Ireland [archives.tcm.ie]
Hong Kong [info.gov.hk]
Yugoslavia [geocities.com]
I am by no means an expert on this, these are just some google results.
Re:Precedent? (Score:3, Informative)
Then again.. (Score:4, Funny)
If it works, let's pass a law making spamming illegal, with harsh penalties, and then demand that everyone extradite thier spammers.
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
The US government wants to keep their nationals, especially government officials, out of any courts no in their control. Of course private citizens and government leaders of other nations are fair game.
It doesn't look like precedent to me, it looks more like the US is doing it because they can.
Re:Precedent? (Score:3, Insightful)
The specifics in this case aren't familiar to me, but whining about "US law trumping everyone else" sounds like a bunch of America-hater rhetoric. If you break into my company's network and sabotage data and cause serious havoc (death, financial destruction, etc.) and run, extradition is meant for you. If you happen to be in another country
Re:Precedent? (Score:4, Informative)
"So in order to protect our citizens, we are in the process of negotiating bilateral agreements with the largest possible number of states, including non-Parties. These Article 98 agreements, as they are called, provide American citizens with essential protection against the Court's purported jurisdiction claims, and allow us to remain engaged internationally with our friends and allies. To date, 14 countries have signed Article 98 agreements with us."
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Common mistake. (Score:4, Interesting)
Some rights in the Constitution are considered to have a prerequisite of "must be a free citizen in good standing", yes. For instance, if you're convicted of a felony you can have your rights to firearms, your right to vote, your right to associate taken away from you. (The government will let a paroled felon go to church, but not join the Crips. That's an example of how the government restricts the associations of criminals.) Other rights are inherent to the person, such as the right to an attorney, and must be granted to everyone.
The dodge used in Guantanamo is this: the Constitution only applies within the United States. Guantanamo is Cuban soil, and thus it's governed under Cuban law...
(True, by the by: the US doesn't own Gitmo. We've just got it on a very long-term lease from Cuba. It's annoyed Fidel Castro for decades.)
Personally, I think Gitmo is a pathetic way to try and dodge the Constitution. But the logic Gitmo's defenders use is basically what I outlined above.
Re:Common mistake. (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes. You apparently have not, not even the part of it which you're attempting to cite to me:
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States
How can Congress and/or the Executive Branch enter into a treaty which violates the Constitution, given the Constitution does not grant Congress and/or the Executive Branch the authority to violate the Constitution? An unconstitutional treaty is not one made under the authority of the United S
Re:Precedent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Precedent? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no magic in this being an Internet Thang. He could have set up a Murder For Hire using Snail Mail and a handwritten check and we'd still be trying to extradite him and it would still be up the the courts in Oz.
Mark
Re:Precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
But if US law took priority we'd be extraditing lots of Canadians to be tried in US courts for copyright infringment even though it's perfectly legal here in Canada...
Or something totaly different... it's legal to smoke pot here in Canada... if US law took priority then we'd be extradited to the US for enjoying a bud...
Different countries different laws... why should we be arrested and extradited for laws of other countries if we broke none in our own? (And have never stepped foot in the other country even) That would be like arresting all those downloading pr0n and extraditing them to Iran or something because it violates Islamic laws of decency...
Just my two cents...
Addbo
Re:Precedent? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think you may have smoked one too many, my friend. The law hasn't changed quite yet, and when it does, posession of 15g or less of marijuana will unfortunately only be decriminalised, not legalised. You are right in a sense though. Pot is basically defacto legal here in that there is almost no enforcement of simple posession. You can pretty much light up in the middle of downtown without anyone blinking an eye.
On a side note, it's annoying that although recent
Re:Precedent? (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you ever seen a guy/girl having a "nic fit"?
I personally don't even drink alcohol, let alone smoke anything, but I fail to see the rationale behind keeping pot illegal whilst having alcohol legal (or tobacco).
My brother told me once that tobacco was the most addictive drug he had ever tried (including marijuana). While the claims that the big T is more addictive than cocaine are dubious, I don't doubt that it is HIGHLY addictive.
To post On Topic, let me just say that the practice of extradition is dangerous in general. The ONLY time I think it is justified is if the criminal in question is either a) a citizen of the country whose laws they broke or b) broke a countries laws *while in that country*.
The idea that you *might* be responsible for breaking laws of a country in which you do not reside, and are not visiting, nor are you a citizen of (heck, though if you aren't there, I don't think you should be responsible for those laws while out of the country), is frightening in the extreme.
To make this political (and no I'm not karma whoring, my karma is good enough), this is the one legitimate complaint against Bush, IMNSHO: the patriot act (and similar drek). Laws that decrease freedom are bad laws.
By saying this, I feel obliged to state that I do believe that there are a number of laws that actually increase freedom. One example of this would be harsh laws against rape--by making rape illegal, women are made more free to live as they want without fear. Granted, this is not the "perfect" example, but it serves to illustrate the point--some laws do increase freedom. But laws that do not increase freedom, but instead restrict it, are bad laws, and should be unconstitutional. Certainly nothing about copyright rights protect freedom. (I am aware of the IP rights argument, but I think it's vain).
If you write a book, yes you should be allowed to make money off it--the same with anything else, but I think copyrights should be limited to 10 years, no more. This would actually INCREASE the amount of innovation, literary work, etc, because if you want to make money for more than 10 years, you must write a new book (or song, or what have you).
Wait a sec (Score:5, Funny)
Extradition (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Extradition (Score:2, Informative)
and we don't give any help in such cases
Re:Extradition (Score:5, Insightful)
Their lawyers are using simple SCO tactics like "our IP is in their product" they can say it but it does not make it true.
adult desktops & wallpapers [67.160.223.119]
Re:Extradition (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not fanmiliar with Australian copyright laws but him saying that it is not a crime is not incompatible with you saying that it is illegal. A great many things that are illegal are not crimes. And yes, the distinction can matter a lot.
If you are sayi
Re:Extradition (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if the action is a "crime" in both places there plenty of situations where extradition treaties are not applicable. There are also specific issues relating to extradition to the US. e.g. human rights issues. Especially now that the way US authorities abused innocent
Re:Extradition (Score:4, Insightful)
Those tactics are perfectly valid for defending someone in a criminal trial and a lawyer would be stupid not to do this.
In criminal trials the burden of proof is entirely on the side of the prosecutor. If he doesn't like your defense he is free to submit proof to the contrary.
Civil cases, however, both sides have the burdon of proof for the respective claims they make. A lawyer using these tactics in a civil case doesn't gain anything since it is himself who has to provide proof.
The fact that SCO uses these tactics shows that they don't care about the actual outcome of the case (they know they'll lose) but rather want to work with the effects this has outside of the case (e.G. media attention to drive their stock price).
Re:Extradition (Score:2)
The other rule is that if you are a big enough criminal you are unlikely to be punished at all. See Enron, Microsoft, Palamate, etc.
Re:Extradition (Score:3, Interesting)
The rules for extradition are determined by bilateral treaty, and some treaties have a phrase to the effect of what you say. The US & Australia agreed to something a little different. The treaty [austlii.edu.au] says that the parties agree to deliver to each other anyone charged or convicted of commiting any of a bunch of crimes listed in the treaty. I suspect that exchanging warez counts under one or more of the extraditable offenses.
There was at least one amendment [austlii.edu.au] to the t
Re:Extradition (Score:5, Insightful)
Q. Is that legal?
A. It is if you have nuclear weapons.
Now, he was talking about a different topic, but I think it's a good explanation for a lot that's going on in the world now. It certainly explains the US government current foreign policies.
And the FTA starts to bite (Score:4, Interesting)
Seems we wont be able to buy DVDs from the US soon to because of all this.
Another morality question: (Score:2)
Morally, should I be extradited to face trial for my deliberate actions against the murdered US citizen?
Oh course, the law should be all different for when you're stealing software, shouldn't it? Bah. I'm a developer. I try to use Free Software exclusively. If I use non-free software, I pay for it. So should you.
Re:Another morality question: (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, if you live in any country based on any European legal tradition, or anywhere else not ruled by paranoid dictators/warlords or that kind of shit. This is what lawmakers do: Find ways of stopping this 'but this is the letter-of-the-law'-style whining oxenscheisse. If you conspire to murder, and the deliberations take place in your own country, you own the murder to virtually the same degree as the hit man.
Fear Uncle Sam (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe that fear of US sanctions have worked well to bring some countries to crack down. [mithuro.com]
But sometimes this is not enough. It is not a case of hijacking Australian law.
I am usually don't condone the strong arm techniques of the US government. And I do support open source. But Warez is a crime. And it should be punished.
Cross jurisdiction policing is the only way to fight spammers. It is the only way to stop intellectual property theft. But more importantly it is the only way to fight terrorism [mithuro.com].
(I do understand that terrorism means different things to different people. But whatever the reasons terrorist have for doing what they do, KILLING INNOCENT CIVILIANS is immoral. Full stop.)
Re:Fear Uncle Sam (Score:2, Funny)
Warez != Terrosism
Re:Fear Uncle Sam (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Fear Uncle Sam (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a crime to eat chewinggum in Singapore. Does that mean Singapore can extradite and incarcerate every American who eats chewinggum in US soil?
Re:Fear Uncle Sam (Score:4, Insightful)
Chuckle.
A lot like the way the DMCA *doesn't* make fair use illegal.
-
Re:Fear Uncle Sam (Score:3, Interesting)
In any event, the basic assumption here is that "intellectual property" is even conceptually valid. Thomas Jefferson didn't think so, and was very hesitant about allowing copyright (i.e., ownership of ideas) to even become a part of U.S. law, because he feared the kind of
Re:Fear Uncle Sam (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. Warez is a crime IN THE US, but not in Australia.
In Germany it's illegal to say ANYTHING that is pro-nazi. Do you think that the US would even consider extraditing one of its citizens who posted something pro-nazi on a website? Of course not.
This is lunacy, pure and simple.
LK
Re:Fear Uncle Sam (Score:3, Informative)
You don't go to jail for civil offenses, you pay a fine, restitution or both. You don't extradite someone for a civil offense. So, if he broke a civil law in AU, he should face AU justice. If the "victims" of that offense were in the US, they only have the redress of the AU legal system.
LK
Word Nazi (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate that word, (ir)regardless.
Not hijacking (Score:5, Insightful)
If you commit a crime in a foreign country which is also considered a crime in your home country you should be extradited. No question.
If you commit a criminal act in a foreign country which is legal in your home country, you probably shouldn't be extradited. At least not in this case, where the guy hasn't even set foot in the USA while perpetrating the alleged crime.
But: Software piracy is not legal in Australia.
So the question is: Does the US court have jurisdiction of these crimes, if they did occur in Australia?
That's a question which the US court will no doubt adress in the trial.
But if they don't, then it means that he should be tried in Australia..
So what's the issue?
Re:Not hijacking (Score:2)
There is no "probably" about it. If you do something that isn't a crime where you are, the government there shouldn't send you to another place where it is a crime. Sodomy is illegal in certain US states, but lets say you have anal sex where it's legal (realizing or not it's illegal elsewhere), should you be sent over to another state? No. Then you definitely shouldn't be sent ov
Re:Not hijacking (Score:5, Insightful)
Better questions are:
I hope that it's looked at in Australian courts first.
I don't see the hijacking bit? (Score:2)
time for a change (Score:2, Interesting)
It all should be resolved in a different manner, instead of criminalising more and more actions, more things should be allowed. Think about it, nowadays nearly everyone is a criminal, either he shared some files, or unknowingly infringed some patents.
Like someone said: "According to our research P2P sharers are 500% more prone to commit another crim
Re:time for a change (Score:2)
Think about it, nowadays nearly everyone is a criminal, either he shared some files, or unknowingly infringed some patents.
Yep, and all you have to do is prove it. It's 2004. Are you a criminal yet?
Dangerous Precident (Score:2)
Expect all laws to be taken to the lowest common denominator and if you do anything that violates another countries laws ( when you couldn't get it passed in your own ) expect to be jailed. Making most everyone a criminal, with their rights stripped from them at will by their respective governments.
This also has ramifications for free speech, as many things you can say in one country is outlawed in another..
This is
Actually (Score:5, Informative)
And then it's up to the Australian judicial authority (judge/panel/court I don't know) to extradite, or not, based on what the extradition request and the arrest warrant ask for.
At least, that's how things should be working in theory.
Slashdot interview: Chris Tresco from DrinkOrDie (Score:3, Interesting)
Slashdot interview: Chris Tresco from DrinkOrDie [slashdot.org]
Careful... (Score:2, Funny)
The American Empire (Score:5, Insightful)
Serving their corporate masters. (Score:2)
There is a precedent but it will never hold. (Score:5, Interesting)
That said the issues are subtley but still substantially different. Libel is a civil issue, facilitation of piracy is criminal. International treaties handle these cases differently (and quite often not at all), it would have not been possible to sue that jornelist if his paper had no dealings in Australia as if I remember correctly Australian defamation laws are not recognised by America because of the differnces in laws and to a lesser extend the differences in culture. Only the Australian arm of that company could be sued.
But even if the crime was ruled to have been commited in America, as is possible extradition may not be possible. This is because nomatter where a crime was commited, if a sovereign nation does not recognise those crimes or recognises them to a lesser extent (as is the case here) then deportation may be conditional or even impossible.
Personally I don't see a deportation happening, the backlash that would occur when an Australian is sent to a foreign land that he has never set foot on before, to stand before a foreign jury to answer to foreign crimes for an action that was alledged to occur in the man's own home, in his own country would be sickening to most Australians or anyone with a sence of national identity, even if they are not Australian. There is a strong undercurrent of hostility towards the US flowing around Australia's youth and left wing. No judge would be willing to make this man a martr to Australian nationalism. Australia is one of the only countrys never to have had any wars or bloody revolutions, nobody would risk making this sacrifice to appease a foreign power if it meant a remote possibilty that thousends of angry young people with a newfound nationalistic furver could be storming the high court, parlement house, the US embassy and pine gap.
One also has to consider that a legal system that would entitle a foreign power to snatch away citizens for breaking laws of another nation into a distant land where they have never been is harldy soverign. Even if he is not crushed by homocidal revolutionarys, any judge that allows this extradition will surely be relinquising his own power to those overseas. This is completely contrary to human nature, let alone the nature of one ambitious enough to become a high court justice.
But let me say this. If this extradition is allowed, whosoever allows this man has commited nothing wrong in his own country to be taken to a foreign land as a prisoner, shall have fire and chaos thown down on him or her by either their power being snatched away by the American judituary or their life being snatched away by hostile revolutionarys. If they act in the wrong way, their own actions shall not go unlamented.
Australia's Vinegar Hill/Castle Hill uprising (Score:3, Interesting)
Not exactly [eurekatimes.net]. Vinegar hill was not particularly bloody, or very long. I think the Aboriginals would have a thing or two to say about bloody wars as well. I think this quote from Cam on Kuro5hin [kuro5hin.org] sums it up nicely. Especially the second to last sentence.
at the risk of performing the political troll... (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess this is to be expected from a government that will storm into a crippled-to-the-level-of-impotence Iraq to stop them from developing, err, "weapons of mass destruction", but will just cautiously sidestep any country of real WMD threat (China, NK, Israel).
Seems to be another case of break the weakling orpahan to keep the rest in line.
depends (Score:3, Insightful)
however, if this is correct:
The US moved for the extradition after the US Department of Justice became dissatisfied with Australia's inability to charge Griffiths.
then i guess that explains why they are trying to extradite him in the first place.
however, in my opinion, it would set a dangerous precedent. if he's committed no crime under australian law and the act deemed a crime by the US was in fact committed in australia, then he should not be extradited.
AMERICANS! Get your act together! (Score:5, Insightful)
Did he commit a crime in the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
This could mean that the guy could spend the rest of his life defending himself against exactly the same charge, in any country that has a similar extradition treaty with Australia. There's a good reason that people should only be tried once.
Another article (Score:2)
How many of you bought your copy of Photoshop? (Score:2, Offtopic)
I thought so.
I am the ONLY person I know who owns a legitimate copy of PS. I know a LOT of people.
I don't care about "Right and Wrong" semantics. Fact is, the web would have a lot fewer graphics today without warez pirates. I even bet some of the graphics on Slashdot were originally made on illegal copies of PS. Tell me I'm wrong.
-FL
Re:How many of you bought your copy of Photoshop? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hehe, I've got at least one guy that feels I made him what he is today, his words, not mine. About 10-12 years ago, I gave him a warezed version of 3D studio max - this was back in the days of slow modems, swapping floppies and data parties, even before we got on Internet. Fi
Re:How many of you bought your copy of Photoshop? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or use one of the zillion lousy photo-editing applications that come bundled with cameras, scanners, printers, etc. There's probably one on your machine already, force-installed by some driver installation.
Is this really a "crime"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most extradition treaties deal with criminal offenses.
Other than the weird laws of the US (sorry, but thats my opinion), since when has "copyright infringement" been considered a criminal offense?
I guess we can expect the RIAA to extradite for downloading next?
National Sovereignty... (Score:5, Interesting)
The civil war in Columbia started as a question of National Sovereignty over the extradition (to the United States) of a cocaine producer, which was not against the law in Columbia at the time. This extradition led to the increasing popularity of the FARC, and their accompyaning (Stalinist) socialist platform, increased cocain production and exportation (to the United States) in order to finance both right wing and left wing paramilitaries, and increased hardships for the poorest of Columbias people, who were already suffering due to ecconomic hardships and a lack of basic civil rights for the majority of Columbias people.
Actions such as these cause increased mistrust of a nations government, lend credence to dangerous or misguided political movements, (rightfully) increases anti-American sentiment, leads to internal social conflict, and increase crime in the nation that would extradite for an offense that is not illegal in that country.
Given that Australia is not a third-world country, is not a narcotics exporting country, and has a stable and (I assume) fair form of government, it is unlikely that the repecussions will be as unsettling or as harmful as has occurred in Columbia.
Still, demanding extradition for an offense that is not illegal in the offenders country, and was not committed in the requesters country, does not serve a nations national interest, as it will weaken it's ability to (ethically and effectively) influence the other nations policies, creates mistrust among the citizens and governments of other nations, and makes traveling abroad more dangerous for the nations citizens due to misguided attacts against it's citizens.
I a company is doing business in a foreign land, then they must be willing to deal with the law (or lack of law) and culture as it exists there. If the company wishes to have that law changed, they should follow the tradition and procedure of that countrynot lobby their own government to have its law enforced on foreign soil.
If this man has broken Australian law, he should be prosecuted under Australian law, or if it is a civil offense there, the harmed American parties should sue in Australian courts.
The US pressing for extradition in this case may seem like a "win" to the companies who produced the software, but for everyone else, and for US relations with Australia, this could be a big loss in the long run.
No (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the US has a camp full of people in custody who commited no crimes on US territory, and the US invaded and occupied two entire countries in response to crimes not commited by the residents of those countries, so apparently the US law enforcement has a slightly different view on the matter.
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it is. In Australia they have things called "trials" precisely for the purpose of debating such issues.
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:2)
But how is that relevant? You can't seriously mean that he must be convicted to be extradited? -That would mean being tried for the same crime twice.
Now, if the act he had commited was legal in his country, then it would be debateable.
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:5, Insightful)
This just underscores my prediction on how the internet will eventually lead to world government.
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:5, Insightful)
Question with the sort of thing this case deals with is where the crime is actually committed. I think that as long as he hosted stuff on a server in Australia and he was in Australia, it does not matter which US copyrights he violated, he did not commit a crime in the US, so he shouldn't be extradited. How can he possibly break US law without being in the US or doing anything in the US?
If the server he is using is located in the US, then maybe things are different. But just because the object was from the US doesn't mean he's broken US laws...
Of course he can be prosecuted in Australia for breaking Australian law
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:2)
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:3, Informative)
Ding-ding [news.com.au]
"The indictment alleged Mr Griffiths controlled access to a drop site for pirated software at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology computer network."
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the same thing. You can't allow laws from one country to affect citizens of another or the most restrictive laws from any one country would apply to all Netizens. That's not wise.
Re:"If he committed no crime in his home country" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Extradition from Australia (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, Australia does have extradition arrangements with the U.S. But was he in the U.S. when he did the crime? And if not, is that a valid defense? If he hacked into a bank, we would want him sent to face the charges. But, not all of us have hacked into banks, but all of us have pirated software or music, therefore we want to be leanient with his sentence.
Re:Extradition from Australia (Score:4, Insightful)
The facts are that these are computer crimes, and boundaries are somewhat gray when it comes to jurisdiction. If the guy was a virus writer, even if the virus was essentially harmless, we would be screaming at the top of our lungs for the chair. Spammers, same thing. The DOD warez group? They gave me all those cool games. They should get medals for fighting the Corporate Interests which are taking away my rights!
See, it's all in the perception of the law, not the letter of the law, and not the spirit. We can get outraged and call a law unjust, but we are not always objective. Pot Laws are a perfect example of this. We have large groups fighting for the right to smoke pot. Should we legalize it because a lot of people want to smoke up? Did the editors at high times give this a lot of thought, or do they just want to smoke pot?
Now, I'm all for legalizing it, but I want the same controls as alcohol. Give me a roadside test for it, that does not involve a blood test or urine test, and I'll be the the guy in the first row of the march on the capitol. Until then, simply legalizing it, even if half the population smokes, would be irresponsible. In North America, we do not have the public transportation infrastructure to give pot smokers options to travel, and we have no yardstick to measure when it's dangerous to drive under the influence.
That's enough ranting. In summary, Democracy is about being fair and responsible. Changing the laws to prevent people from becoming criminals will only lead to a land of no laws to infringe, denegrating into a cultural hedonism.
Re:Not all that unreasonable (Score:2, Funny)
Oh gee, can we?
Re:Not all that unreasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Who modded this insightful? It's stupid. It doesn't matter where the victim lives, it matters where the crime was committed. If I rob a Swiss tourist in Sydney, do I get extradited to Switzerland to stand trial for robbery? Think, people, think!
Re:Not all that unreasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true, but the location of the victim is entirely irrelevant. What is important in law is the location of the crime. If I steal an American's luggage in Sydney while he's still in Los Angel
Re:This is making me shudder (Score:2, Insightful)
The major "crime" of an adult website operator going to KSA is likely to be is of them not being Muslim. Something which might be punishable by disdain, shoddy treatment etc, but unlikely to be flogging. Is Danni Ashe a Muslim?
Generally non-Muslims do not get flogged in Riyadh, they simply get permanently expelled from the country.
However, if any Musl
Re:Fucktard (Score:5, Insightful)
You see, everyone, what the right wing firebrands have to resort to? They don't have a calm, rational argument to make, so they resort to namecalling and hate speech. Harldy makes my job difficult. I just make an observation and let the right-wingers bury themselves under a pile of invectives.
I refer to the presidential administration as the "Bush Admin," hardly inflammatory, and this guy refers to me as "Fucktard." That's really persuasive. Wow, what a compelling argument. Your point is the more valid one because I'm a "fucktard."
As far as the proof you ask for, the post I'm replying to is proof enough. The US is trying to get someone sent over here to face charges related to internet crimes, so I don't see why it's so far fetched that they'd send someone abroad for the same reason. It certainly would put the fear of God into every American adult site operator, and it would win massive kudos from the AFA and Christian Coalition. Of course, making Christian websites available would also be a crime in the MIddle East, but there'd be an exception made in the law for that.
Re:This is making me shudder (Score:3, Insightful)
If we start down the slope, where will it stop?
Re:No fucking chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No fucking chance (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when is "copyright infringement" criminal? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the subject, says it all!
Re:No fucking chance (Score:5, Insightful)
(A) He's not a criminal and
(B) he's not "seeking refuge". He's remaining at home where he's been the whole time.
The US is getting uppity at Autralia because Australia is not prosecuting him. And the REASON Autralia is not prosecuting him is because HE DID NOT BREAK THE LAW.
The US wants to extradite him so they can persecute him for "breaking codes", NOT for copyright infringment. "Breaking codes" is nothing but working out mathematics. And guess what? It's not a crime to do math in Australia! He's not a criminal.
It's my dip-shit home country of America that came up with the numbskull idea of criminalizing math.
P.S.
The Chinese people should have a revolution and overthrow their government. OOPS! I JUST VIOLATED CHINESE LAW! I guess I'm a criminal too! Quick, someone extradite me to China!
-
Re:Transportation at the heart of Australian Histo (Score:2)
It doesn't mean we've learnt anything about it. Our current stance on refugees is so cruel and wrong it's depressing. It amounts to: don't come here, if you try to come here we'll ship you off to Nauru or lock up in "detention centres" with worse conditions than many jails. It applies to anyone (including young children) who tries to come to Australia as a refugee outside the 'correct channels'. (As though all refugees can
Re:Legal or not, deserved. (Score:3, Insightful)
1) I haven't seen anything in any Drink or Die
2) Anyone with more than a week's experience in software piracy knows not to go to a warez website to get anything. Noobs will try it at first,
Re:Legal or not, deserved. (Score:3, Interesting)
2) Anyone with more than a week's experience in software piracy knows not to go to a warez website to get anything. Noobs will try it at first, get sick of the porn ads, redirects, dirty tricks, etc., and then gravitate to where the real distribution takes places: IRC, Usenet, or P2P, including your beloved BitTorrent. Or do you think that BT is used to only distribute Linux distros?""
Heh. Only newbies/lamers use P2P, IRC or Usenet. Granted, they
Re:"Should" is irrelevant (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize, this is one of the weakest arguments you can possibly make. "Forget all intellectual arguments, precedent, centuries of commonlaw. If this happened to YOU, you'd want him hung! So it's OK to hang him!"
Try giving a few of us the benefit of the doubt that we DO value the system and won't automatically join the lynch mob at the first chance. Or, failing that, how about the idea that the entire purpose of having *impartial* judicial systems is to make sure that the victims DON'T turn into blindly self-serving mobs?
Re:The Internet is Real (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you saying that if I sit off-shore and beam "illega"l materials over US airwaves, that I should be arrested and tried, even though I'm not a US citizen and I was in international waters when I did the braodcasting?
Funny, 'cause the US does that all the time... we put ships and aircraft near "evil" countries and beam in locally illegal content in an attempt to incite the population to rebel.
Re:The Internet is Real (Score:4, Insightful)
"If this guy is extradited to the US from Australia, then I expect we'll start seeing China start trying to extradite operators of web sites around the world for violating China's decency and media control laws. It's the same issue. The outrage the US government would project over such a move would be overwhelming, yet they expect people to accept this case."
I guess people are reading "world's first warez extradition" and thinking that this case sets some sort of precedent -- yours is not the only "if this happens, then that will happen" post. It may be the first warez extradition, but this sort of thing has been going on for centuries.
"The Internet is a borderless medium, a nation's laws should only apply to issues where all of the events and parties are within that nation's borders."
Remember, one of the hacked FTP servers he controlled was at MIT. I believe that if you hack into, or otherwise use a US computer in an unauthorized manner, you should be subject to US law -- I know this guy has our sympathy and many Slashdotters see him as a "good guy," but this principle also allows us to go after child pornographers and the like. And, this guy's free will does come into play... if he did not want to run the risk of running afoul of US law, he should not have run an FTP site here to distribute software released by US companies.
To be clear, I do see your point -- I simply do not think that the Internet should be a gaping loophole of this sort. If I live in the US and somebody's trying to hack into my PC, or they're distributing my intellectual property, or they're trying to sell me child pornography, I care not one bit if they've moved to, say, Tonga to avoid prosecution.