Should British Hacker Lauri Love Be Tried In America? (theguardian.com) 254
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Of course not (Score:4, Insightful)
The UK government has been handing people over with no questions asked for as long as I can remember, whereas it's all but impossible the other way round because of the constitution and how judges interpret it.
Sod the merits of the individual case, he shouldn't be extradited unless and until it works both ways.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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,
Re:Of course not (Score:5, Informative)
It is not all but impossible. In the last extradition review, conducted by a panel headed by Sir Scott Baker, they found the following:
That the US made 130 extradition requests to the UK.
That the UK refused 10 of those requests.
That the UK submitted 54 extradition requests to the US.
The US refused none of them.
Of the 120 requests accepted by the UK, 77 were extradited. The rest were either pending in the UK legal system, the person voluntarily went to the US, or the case became moot for other reasons.
Of the 54 requests accepted by the US, 38 were extradited. The rest either voluntarily went to the UK or the case became moot for other reasons.
You'll note that none of the UK extradition requests were pending the US legal system. If the standards in the treaty are met, the U.S. Constitution offers little in the way to prevent extradition to the UK. Partly that is because as a treaty, it is part of the Supreme Law of the Land (Article 6, Clause 2), and partly because the US Constitution poses almost no barrier to extradition.
The US extradites its citizens quite often and quite readily. Some countries refuse to extradite their citizens, even if there is a valid extradition treaty (see France and Brazil). So long as there is a valid extradition treaty, and the crime charged satisfies the dual criminality component of those treaties, the US has and will extradite its citizens.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Between the full wrath and fury of the US and Brexit, the UK as we know it may very well cease to exist within the next 5-10 years.
Don't worry, the Queen has connections everywhere:
http://www.newstatesman.com/gl... [newstatesman.com]
Re: (Score:2)
>> the UK as we know it may very well cease to exist
Thanks to all the peecee morons and all the immigrants, the UK I grew up in ceased to exist ages ago.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That would be the UK that drove one of its greatest mathematicians and war winners to suicide. I'm glad it's gone
Re: (Score:2)
because no other government ever hounded people for being homosexuals right?
The USA does not have a legal system (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re:The USA does not have a legal system (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The USA does not have a legal system (Score:5, Insightful)
We were instructed quite specifically that the state bringing a case against someone is not to be considered as any indication of guilt.
You have missed the point. Something like 97% of federal cases never even get to the courtroom.
Ref: Why U.S. Criminal Courts Are So Dependent on Plea Bargaining [theatlantic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And, still, jury trials are considered risky for defendants, never know what might come out the other end, and many juries don't seem inclined to listen to instructions, evidence, or anything besides the prejudices they bring with them into the courtroom, even though the paneling process is supposed to reduce these problems.
If you're facing 2 years in a minimum security country club with a plea bargain, or potentially 20 years of hard time with a jury trial, what kind of odds are you willing to play in that
Re: Jurisdiction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: Jurisdiction (Score:2)
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?
Obviously not (Score:2, Insightful)
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 measu
Re: Obviously not (Score:2)
Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
Those crimes were trialed in an International Court with supra-national jurisdiction. It's not the same thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Cruel and unusual is in the eye of the beholder... this is the essential question before the magistrate: will he prevent extradition due to the disparity of penalties?
If you post a picture of a pork BBQ to Facebook and it gets displayed in the UAE, should you be extradited to the UAE to face punishment for your crime?
Re: Yes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If posting a picture of a pork BBQ to Facebook is also illegal in your country, sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the problem. Seems in America all punishments, including slow death with experimental lethal injection, are not cruel or unusual. Has any punishments been ruled cruel and/or unusual in America? Here in Canada, laws have been struck down for having minimal sentences including 3 strike types of laws.
Hmm, seems that the electric chair is considered cruel and unusual, but lethal injection is fine and executing the mentally challenged is also considered cruel and unusual but is still done. Probably 99 y
Re: Yes (Score:2)
99 years for logging into a unsecured FTP server would be considered fine down there.
Without dwelling to long on the idea of how, exactly, one 'logs into' an 'unsecured FTP server', I find it hard to believe he 'accidentally' logged into an unknown US Gov't server and then was somehow tracked down and arrested.
If he only wanted to be subject to more lenient U.K. Hacking laws, he should have stuck with hacking into U.K. Servers.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be daft, of course punishments have been ruled cruel and unusual in the US.
Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1878), affirmed that death by torturous means such as drawing and quartering, public dissection, burning alive, or disembowelment were cruel and unusual.
Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910), overturned a punishment called cadena temporal.
Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958), held that revoking natural born citizenship for a crime was cruel and unusual punishment.
Yes, people point to the outs
Re: (Score:3)
This doesn't seem to be the defendant deciding, it seems to be the courts of his home country.
Extradition treaties shouldn't be a one way gate, which is the current situation with US-UK.
US-UK extradition imbalance is a myth. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does "in dubio pro reo" have to do with extradition?
Re: (Score:2)
No. The crime happens where the criminal is located and acts, not where the effect of the actions manifests.
Re: NO (Score:2)
Re: 9-11 (Score:2)
Re: Yes (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So try the person in the country they're in when they broke the law.
Re: Yes (Score:2)
No, where the crime occurred, not where they are seated when the crime is committed elsewhere.
US gov't servers on US soil were hacked by someone not on US soil...
If I sit in a bistro in France and call a hit man in the US to kill my business partner in the US, exactly why should I be tried in the French court system?
extradition treaty (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isn't the treaty, it's human rights. We aren't supposed to extradite people of their human rights are likely to be violated. That could include the death penalty and extremely long sentences.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One could even argue that being jailed for life in a foreign country should be comparable to the death sentence. As someone said higher up, getting shot in the head can even be argued to be MORE humane than spending the rest of your life in prison with no chance of ever getting out.
Re: (Score:2)
There is also some question over the availability of suitable treatment for his condition, and if the US system can give someone with it a fair trial.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think European legal systems are any better at that, you're just displaying more of your trademark ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
European legal systems? Which types are you referring to? In general yes the European legal systems are better, loser pays , the level of evidence needed for a conviction in criminal cases are often extreme*, the defense is generally better etc. Stacking of verdicts on different aspects of the same crime isn't used. But the types of systems vary a lot.
But of course Europe also includes Russia and some other countries with suspect legal systems. Guess those are the only ones that matter?
Re: (Score:2)
You're dreaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Treaties have provisions for dealing with such issues; usually, extradition comes with the provision that the punishment won't be harsher than the punishment in the country of citizenship. So you are speaking from a position of ignorance.
Furthermore, if you don't like the US legal system in principle, don't si
Re: extradition treaty (Score:2)
No, not subject to US law (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Effectively if we follow your reasoning this is becomes reduced to a state sponsored attack on the US by the UK.
Absolutely not! What he did is a crime in the UK and absent an extradition he will be tried and punished in the UK for the crime he committed in the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
and absent an extradition
Projecting.
The thing is most things need to be a crime in the home country in order to qualify for extradition, so that is kind of a pointless statement. It may have been a crime in the UK, but it didn't affect anyone in the UK and there was no damage done in the UK, it wasn't discovered by the UK, and if it wasn't for the American victims the UK would have zero interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but since he's not getting off scott free even if he remains in the UK, it's not exactly fair to claim he's going to go unpunished nor is it fair to claim that his actions would somehow be state sponsored, now is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, he was in the UK. So fuck the US victims if they don't want to inform the UK of activity illegal in the UK and request that the UK prosecute the breach of UK laws.
Stop trying to impose extraterritorial injustices.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes no sense. If Russia (for example) won't investigate and prosecute a crime one of it's citizens commits against a victim elsewhere, what makes you think they'll go to the trouble of extradition?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No for three reasons. First and foremost what he did is illegal under UK law so he was breaking UK law and should be answerable for that in the UK. Secondly there was no physical attack he merely persuaded some computers to send information the US did not want sent.
Lastly, even if it were not illegal under UK law, a citizen of a country exercising their rights and freedoms under that country's laws does not make it a "state sponsored attack". State sponsored attacks are conducted by someone on a governm
Re: (Score:2)
First and foremost what he did is illegal under UK law
Which is the first step of all extradition proceedings. It's basically impossible to get someone arrested and extradited from a country where a practice is legal.
should be answerable for that in the UK. Secondly there was no physical attack he merely persuaded some computers to send information the US did not want sent.
But you contradict thyself. Was it illegal in the UK or not, was the target the US or not? If the target was not someone in the US then what is he being charged for in the UK? The location of the victims of a crime basically forms the foundation of why extradition exists. This isn't some special case because "computer".
Re:No, not subject to US law (Score:4, Interesting)
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 [oxforddictionaries.com]. 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.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't about standing and suing, this is a criminal charge. Sue a British person all you fucking like in the US, but if you want to charge them with a crime then they'd better have been in the US when they committed it.
The US don't need "standing" for the CPS to pursue a prosecution; if the law was broken, there's sufficient evidence that a trial can be reasonably believed will reach a guilty verdict and it's in the public interest then the CPS will prosecute, irrespective of who the fucking victim is.
Re: No, not subject to US law (Score:2)
Actual Harm (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The US government allegedly needed to spend $5,000,000 on improving security after the incident. Of course, those were the same improvements that they needed to make even before the incident happened, judging by the fact that it was able to happen in the first place. Actual damages caused were... were there any?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
"According to the FBI"... so its true then, in America, an unnamed alleged offence is enough to be considered guilty of crimes against humanity, sounds like a country of witch hunting. Do you realise no evidence for any specific crime has been brought against him? of course you should always be able to just trust the goverment to randomly black hole people without trial right? because that would never massively corrupt any system.
Re: (Score:2)
One's 'mental health' is a thing to be considered in sentencing in the UK. It might well be in the US too, but it's unlikely to be a mitigating feature in any trial, if indeed he gets anywhere near a trial.
Thus, it comes down to how humane the UK wants to be here. What this story is all about is to ask the UK judge (via public pressure) to look at the likely sentence he'd get in the UK versus the likely sentence (and treatment) he'll get in the US. Given that disparity, which is the most humane and likely t
Cruel and Unusual (Score:3)
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.
Seems reasonable (Score:2)
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 cri
The US should take some responsibility... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
More like if you leave your shop with the door unlocked, the lights on, and the "yes, we're open" sign still displayed on the door, should I be charged with trespass if I go inside?
Of course not. (Score:2)
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.
Name Change (Score:2)
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.
How to avoid prosecution (Score:2)
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. [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Laws are like spider webs. They will trap smaller insects but larger prey will break through." - multiple attributions
Re: (Score:2)
apparently many think being a pitiful autistic SOB is grounds too for committing all manner of destructive or otherwise evil behaviour.
It's not unrivaled severity (Score:2)
To my ignorant, flat world, black and white, American eyes at least.
What's autism have to do with it? (Score:2)
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%)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they just try him in the UK (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Yes this is right:
Reasons for refusing an extradition request, bars to extradition, are set out in both Parts1 and 2 of the Act, and also within multi and bilateral extradition instruments, and include the following (this list is not exhaustive):
'Double jeopardy'; a person must not be prosecuted or sentenced in respect of an offence that he has already been convicted or acquitted of.
From The Crown Prosecution Service extradition fact sheet [cps.gov.uk]
Re: What does his autism have to do with this? (Score:2)
His psychologist also claims that Love's eczema is a reason he shouldn't be extradited, so I think we know how seriously to take the general argument.
Re: (Score:2)
These are all factors in the decision - eczema probably a very small factor, but autism (or a tendency towards autistic behaviors of any kind) is something the judge might, or might not, want to consider when deciding if he is going to break with extradition tradition and set a precedent of protecting UK citizens the way that the US protects US citizens.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is a suggestion that as nightmarish as it would be in general to be packed up and shipped to an unfamiliar country to face charges in an unfamiliar legal system where you could be imprisoned far away from family for the rest of your life, it's even worse if you are autistic.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say there is a case where extradition to the U.S. would be fine for this sort of crime. I would, however, say that for someone with autism, any sort of extradition to a different culture would be problematic, many have enough trouble coping with their own native culture.
Re: Nope (Score:2, Insightful)
American kangaroo courts are notoriously cruel and unconcerned with justice. Our lawyers & judges are drunk on power and crazed with bloodlust. No country with any self respect at all would surrender one of their citizens to the American Gulag.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You raise an interesting point. These days there is little difference in the idea of extraditing people to the former Soviet Union and the current United States, the criminal justice system in the US having such apoor reputation globally. Of course there are many nations that are worse but that is not an excuse for a supposedly free country.
Re: Nope (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: Nope (Score:2, Insightful)
What shithole do you live in? I'll bet it wouldn't take more than 2 minutes of searching to find many areas where your freedoms, privacy, and other rights are trampled on far worse every day than we have it in the US.
As far as reputation goes, that's irrelevant because it is created by echo chamber jerk offs who know nothing. Only reality counts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're correct, which means you will be modded down. Sigh...
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously? Can you imagine a court in Russia ruling against Putin?? In the USA the government often loses cases.
Re: Nope (Score:2)
Give enough time from one party in power. Your government is not less corrupted than in Russia, judicial appointments are very, very political in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, the USA has only worked for about 250 years, it probably isn't going to work forever. It's just worked as well or better than any government on this planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? A court ruling against Vladimir Putin? Remember that rich businessman who dared to run for office against Putin? The guy who went to jail? And when he got close to the end of his term, that independent Russian judiciary just happened to find more charges against him?
yeah, trumpsky would LOVE to pull that kind of thing off... but we still have an independent judiciary. So he doesn't get to do it. So yeah, the USA has a FAR, FAR better judicial system than probably 90% of the countries on earth
Re: (Score:2)
Their jurisdiction is everywhere. They don't mess about with warrants and all that, they just ,;';o()* [wikipedia.org]
BRB. Door.
no carrier
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think normal hacking is under their jurisdiction. While most people have heard of Mossad Israel have a bunch of other organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think normal hacking is under their jurisdiction. While most people have heard of Mossad Israel have a bunch of other organizations.
Unit 8200 is the part of Mossad that handles cyber operations.
Re: Nope (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So if you leave your front door unlocked and I come in and remove some items, you're saying that that's ok, because you didn't make an effort to deter me?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but when you put some of your items in your front window, stick a banner above your door and a sign on it saying, "Open" then you shouldn't be fucking surprised when people pop in and do some browsing.
Re: (Score:3)
So if you leave your front door unlocked and I come in and remove some items, you're saying that that's ok, because you didn't make an effort to deter me?
It's more like among all the pretty much identical open storefronts in a mall, walking into one random open store gets you a Federal felony illegal entry charge and prison time.
What this really is all about is government bureaucrats and officials covering their asses because they allowed a server with sensitive data they were responsible for to be wide open on the intertubes.
It's the same psychology at work here as with punishing individuals who report vulnerabilities/bugs.
"Kill the messenger!"
Notice that n
Re: (Score:2)
How did the hacker "stumble" on an open FTP server? That's not really the kind of thing you "stumble" upon.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has said anything about not holding him accountable. If not extradited, he will be tried in the UK under the legal system he is familiar with.
Re: (Score:2)
He must be very high functioning
Autism is a very wide spectrum of personality disroders, from the barely noticeable, slightly eccentric to the severely disabling. We aren't all drooling and rocking in a corner, you know, but what we all have in common is diminished ability to take part in social interactions, and perhaps as a way of compensating for this, an ability to concentrate more deeply than most people. Many of us are able to learn how to handle social situations, although I personally have never learned to fully enjoy being around