Australian Extradited For Breaking US Law At Home

An anonymous reader sends us a link to a report in The Age about an Australian resident, who had never set foot in the US and broke US intellectual-property laws in Australia, being extradited to the US to face trial. Hew Raymond Griffiths pleaded guilty in Virginia to overseeing all aspects of the operation of the group Drink Or Die, which cracked copy-protected software and media products and distributed them for free. He faces up to 10 years in a US jail and half a million dollars in fines.

Vice versa

[by Anonymous Coward]

Can someone point out a few cases where the news was somewhere along the lines of "American Extradited For Breaking [fill in foreign country] Law At Home" or does this business only work one way?

Needs to be said

[eclectro (227083)]

Others, however, argue that extradition is necessary to prevent internet crimes that transcend borders.

But yet nothing is done to catch the 419 scammers and all the spammers selling (often fake) pharmaceuticals.

Glad to be German

[Nahooda (906991)]

I'm a bit stunned that Australian law obviously allows extraditing their citizens to other countries. Here in Germany such action is _strictly_ prohibited by the German Constitution.

Re:Glad to be German

[Xonea (637183)]

That is no longer true; the german constitution has been changed recently and now allows extraditions of germans to other countries of the european union or to an international court. You can't be extradited to the USA though :)

(This is specified in Art. 16 (2) GG: http://www.datenschutz-berlin.de/recht/de/gg/gg1_d e.htm#art16 [datenschutz-berlin.de] )

EU Expedited Extradition

[by Anonymous Coward]

Not exactly, you signed up to the EU Extradited extradition which permits extradition for crimes including computer crimes (e.g. breaking DRM, no kidding). However that only applies to within the EU. But if the US can get a puppet government (e.g. Blairville) to issue a warrant for anyone in Europe, they can then extradite using the UK to US expedited extradition treaty.

There's no limits on re-extradition.

Worse, there is no judicial check in the UK, that the reasons given for the extradition, really complies with the requirements for extraditing. This is why a McKinnon (who broke US PCs into had a look around and left) is being accused of doing $5000 damage to each PC, in order for it to be a Federal crime and hence extraditable. The extradition mechanism doesn't let a UK judge check it.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/25/extraditio n_hacker/ [theregister.co.uk]

In theory they could make any allegation against any UK citizen and get them extradited (kidnapped in effect) and the court could do nothing.

[rant]F***ing Blair. We elected a leader, and he became a Bush follower and sold us out. I'll piss on his grave when he dies for the damage he's done to the UK sovereignty. [/rant]

Wanna bet...

[durin (72931)]

... the war on terror made this extradition a lot easier?

This is entirely unacceptable.

[NickHydroxide (870424)]

This is horrendous. I don't condone what he has done, but I contend that this should fall squarely and solely within the sovereign boundaries of Australia. We have a perfectly acceptable method of pursuing him for the same offence - either s 132AC(1) or s 132AC(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), which provide respectively:

(1) A person commits an offence if:

                                          (a) the person engages in conduct; and

                                          (b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and

                                          (c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright; and

                                          (d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale.

(2) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than 550 penalty units or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.

                          (3) A person commits an offence if:

                                          (a) the person engages in conduct; and

                                          (b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and

                                          (c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright and the person is negligent as to that fact; and

                                          (d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale and the person is negligent as to that fact.

Penalty: 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.

There is absolutely no reason to extradite him except for political convenience or expediency, which should NEVER be a basis for depriving someone so severely of their status as a citizen. As Justice Young noted, we should beware allowing (and effecting) foreign prosecutions where the conduct is almost entirely referential to Australia.

If equivalent offences were not in existence in Australia, then perhaps I might be more willing to accept it (although even then I would have drastic reservations). As it stands, I cannot accept this.

Re:Why is this news?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the fact that he isn't under US jurisdiction?

He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why is this news?

Perhaps the fact that he isn't under US jurisdiction?

He most certainly is under US jurisdiction. We own the Australian government, which means we own Australia, which means we own your ass. Break our laws and we'll slam you in our prisons, because we can, and it makes us money to do so.

Welcome to the new world order, Bush (Sr., Jr.) and Clinton style.

Until Australia (and, for that matter, the UK) learns to stand up to the world's biggest bully (what to my immense shame is what my country, the United States, has become), they and their people will be under our jurisdiction, subject to our laws on their own soil, and with no protection from their own governments. Just like the soviet satellite states of the last century, we'll let you wave your own flags and call yourselves whatever you like, but fuck with us and our cash flow, and we'll slam you into our gulag.

You want this to not be the case? Then elect and demand a government with some backbone that will tell the United States exactly where it can get off.

Re:He most certainly IS under US jurisdiction

[TGTilde (874930)]

Flamebait or not, the parent is right. Our government has gone overboard with things like this in the recent past. I just hope that the pendulum swings back sooner rather than later. Too bad I used up all my mod points earlier today.

Re:Why is this news?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the fact that he isn't under US jurisdiction?

He ran an organization which operated in the US. This is no different than drug lords in Columbia being wanted by US authorities. It's also the same as legitimate companies being liable for what their company does in every country they operate.

Re:Why is this news?

[unapersson (38207)]

Well the US is not the World Police. He also broke Australian law, and the crime was committed on Australian soil, so should have been charged and tried there. A sovereign country's citizens should be tried under that country's law, unless the US fancies an international court to handle international crimes.

Re:Why is this news?

[value_added (719364)]

A sovereign country's citizens should be tried under that country's law, unless the US fancies an international court to handle international crimes.

They do.

Just so long as it doesn't involve US citizens. Or military personnel.

Re:Why is this news?

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Assuming you're American, would you want to be extradited to Australia for breaking an Australian law in the US even though you'd never been to Australia?

Re:Why is this news?

[MichaelSmith (789609)]

And assuming you're American, would you want someone to be able to blatantly flaunt our laws and cause harm to Americans and American interests simply because they aren't on our soil? Extradition treaties exist for this very purpose.

If an American currently in Australia is mugged then that crime is comitted in Australia. The fact that American interests (people) were affected does not mean that the offence was comitted in the USA.

The global nature of the Internet does make the location of some crimes ambiguous but that doesn't make it right to just go ahead and pick a jurisdiction.

Re:Why is this news?

[mrchaotica (681592)]

And assuming you're American, would you want someone to be able to blatantly flaunt our laws and cause harm to Americans and American interests simply because they aren't on our soil?

Uh, yes, actually, it's called "sovereignty" and other countries get to have it too! Sucks for us, don't it?

If you want to stop "harm to American interests" then the appropriate method of doing it is to deal with the UN and international law, not to bully other countries into following our national ones.

Re:Why is this news?

[mrchaotica (681592)]

Oh, by the way, I'm sure you and just about every other American has done enough things that are illegal in some country that we'd be locked up for life, or worse, if we were extradited there. Have sex outside of marriage, or in some "deviant" (i.e., anything other than missionary) position? I'll bet that's a capital offense in some religion-infested place. Spit on the sidewalk? That'll land you in prison in Indonesia. Drive on the right side of the road? Ooh, that's a severe violation in England and Japan! Remember, it doesn't matter that you were driving down Route 66 at the time...

Now, think of the madness that would ensue if everyone were as stupid and shortsighted as you are. Aren't you glad you're not in charge?

Re:Why is this news?

[spiritraveller (641174)]

Typically, countries will assert jurisdiction over acts committed within their geographic territory or acts committed by their own citizens wherever they may be. Sometimes a country will assert that a foreign national--though not actually setting foot in the country--has reached out to its jurisdiction by some act, thus invoking "the long arm of the law." Examples would include sending a mail bomb, or breaking into a computer over the internet.

This case does not appear to be based on any of those theories of jurisdiction. According to the article, the US charged Mr. Griffiths with conspiracy. Under conspiracy, any one conspirator is liable for the acts of any other person in the conspiracy.

This is very troublesome when applied to such a mundane crime as copying works and giving them to people who never would have bought them in the first place. The actual effect of the conspiracy is arguably insignificant. It doesn't seem as troublesome when applied to something who planned the 9/11 attacks, where the effect is very significant. But the theory of jurisdiction is the same: conspiracy with people who committed criminal acts inside the prosecuting country.

Re:Why is this news?

[Bob MacSlack (623914)]

You'll be hearing shortly from the government of Nigeria. Your comments about their citizens were deemed to be illegal under Nigerian legal code Section 13.43b and you will be extradited to face criminal charges there.

Have a nice day.

Re:Listen...

[KevinKnSC (744603)]

That's not the drum of revolution, it's the contented monotony of suburban life.

Huh?

[Sycraft-fu (314770)]

Most countries have extradition treaties, meaning they've specifically agreed to send citizens to foreign countries to face prosecution if a formal request is made. You actually want it this way. Wouldn't be much fun if criminals could commit crimes with impunity just because they weren't physically in a country. Now I'm not saying software piracy should be one of those crimes, but let's be real here. What if there was an organized crime boss, living in the US, ordering the deaths of Australian citizens? Would you want the US to extradite him to face justice or would you want them to say "Well he wasn't committing any crimes here, and since he's not in Australia you can't have him, sorry."

Since we don't want criminals using national borders to shield themselves, a large number of nations have extradition treaties with each other. There are restrictions on those treaties, for example Canada can refuse to extradite in cases where the person would face the death penalty, but in general if it is a legit request, the extradition is honoured.

Re:Huh?

[Bob MacSlack (623914)]

Except in your example the crime boss is committing a crime under US law on US soil. I don't believe the law differentiates who is being killed in that case. I honestly can't think of any reason why someone should be extradited in this way. If you are doing something which is legal in your home country, should another country be able to extradite you? No. It's not illegal. If you're doing something that is illegal in your home country, should another country be able to extradite you? No. You should be charged under the laws of your own country.

The only reason any of this seems OK is because it's going on between countries with similar laws. If the laws of two countries are too different nobody would thing it was a good idea. It would be like the US trying to extradite someone from Amsterdam for smoking pot. What if Iran decided it wants to extradite someone for breaking their laws? Doesn't seem like such a good idea does it?

Re:Sad

[kripkenstein (913150)]

I don't know much about Australian internal politics, but in the overall picture I think you are right: the Australian government is at fault here. Why give him up?

Now, the guy violated copyright law - Australian copyright law, as mentioned in TFA,

[Griffiths] indicated that he would be willing to plead guilty to a breach of Australian copyright law

However, since the unlawful act was carried out in Australia, I have no idea why he can't be sentenced there. The US argument is presumably that the copyright owners are in the US, but so what? If I injure a German person while he visits France, should I be extradited to Germany from France? This whole issue just seems bizarre.

Not really

[EmbeddedJanitor (597831)]

Australia is not USA's 51st state. Australian's don't get any of the rights of US citizens, just the down sides.

Thankfully we still have some sanity here in NZ. Although there was perhaps some keenness to hitch up withAustralia in the 1980s and 1990s, less kiwis think thta way now.

Re:Looks like he violated...

[pelrun (25021)]

No. The guy is australian, broke australian law whilst in australia - why the F**K is he being tried in America again?

If you break a law in a country you get tried IN THAT COUNTRY. Extradition works to preserve that - if you break the law then leave the country, you can be extradited BACK to that country to stand trial.