Britain Blocks Hacker's US Extradition on Human Rights Grounds

[EHKOS]

Thank goodness. I was so pissed off to hear about this, and even now the US is being a bad sport.

 

[Vault Citizen]

I dunno if I can agree with Britain on this one. Because he hacked the American Military, I think it would be fair to at-least give him a trial under a American court. BUT! Before people flip shit at me! I would support an alternative of him serving his sentence or punishment in Britain under the British legal system.

So basically he would get a American Trial for committing crimes against the United States, but his punishment must be carried out by the British system, and any ruling against him would have to fall within British Legalities.

Which means that if in America they gave him a Death Sentence, he would probably only get a Life Sentence in Britain if they don't believe in death sentencing.

The courts are currently considering whether or not to bring charges against him so he could still receive punishment, and no we haven't had the death penalty for decades over here.

I'm glad he hasn't been extradited, I don't believe he truly understood what was doing and I don't trust the US to not give him a dramatically disproportionate punishment.

One really good result of this is that extradition will now be sorted by the courts, who are, in my opinion the best people to sort it out.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

1) Move to Britain
2) Commit cybercrimes against US military and intelligence agencies in the immediate afetrmath of the worst terrorist attack in world history
3) Claim to have Asperger's
4) Profit!

Come on, Britain. This is bullshit and everybody knows it.

Actually:

4) Get analysed for alleged claim of Asperger's

Either:
5a) You manage to fool them, in which case you still in trouble with the UK courts
or
5b) They see right through it and you might get deported anyway or at least tried in the UK.

Either way, turns out that not being extradited is not the same as getting off scot-free, as a few people in this thread have claimed. But hey, I guess not doing things the American way is the same as no justice at all, right Mr. Rivkin?

 

[mavkiel]

I could understand them denying to extradite, and trying him under British laws simply because he is their citizen. However, denying it because he might have a mental condition and might attempt suicide, strikes me as silly.

Also, for all those claiming this was a victimless crime. I call bullshit. If a person hacked your military's computer systems, after a terrorist attack you would want his bloody head.

 

[SteewpidZombie]

I dunno if I can agree with Britain on this one. Because he hacked the American Military, I think it would be fair to at-least give him a trial under a American court. BUT! Before people flip shit at me! I would support an alternative of him serving his sentence or punishment in Britain under the British legal system.

So basically he would get a American Trial for committing crimes against the United States, but his punishment must be carried out by the British system, and any ruling against him would have to fall within British Legalities.

Which means that if in America they gave him a Death Sentence, he would probably only get a Life Sentence in Britain if they don't believe in death sentencing.

The courts are currently considering whether or not to bring charges against him so he could still receive punishment, and no we haven't had the death penalty for decades over here.

I'm glad he hasn't been extradited, I don't believe he truly understood what was doing and I don't trust the US to not give him a dramatically disproportionate punishment.

One really good result of this is that extradition will now be sorted by the courts, who are, in my opinion the best people to sort it out.

While I do agree he may not have known what he was doing, I'd at-least charge him with some sort of minor felony such as illegal use of gathering information. Because if he can go and hack a Military's computer system on THAT kind of level, he must still have something going on in his brain that allows him to function on a normal level.

So while I can see the United States taking a extreme stance against him in a court of law, I think it's the only 'Fair' way to at-least get both sides to have a mutually satisfied conclusion. Even if it's just bringing in a few American Lawyers and having them present a case in a British court. So long as the case is presented by, and explained by a American legal team, I'm sure that they'd be fine with the British courts deciding on the actual charges IF they decided to press any.

Because if Mental Disability were a strong defense, then people would be able to get away with Murder and Theft all the time. It'll probably come down to assessing how much damage he actually caused, and figuring out whether or not he should be held directly responsible. Maybe the U.S. will even overlook the entire case if Britain is willing to financially compensate the U.S. for the number of computers that were completely rendered useless.

I'm sure people would still see it as a victory for Britain in defending the rights of it's people, and protecting a citizen from being taken away by a foreign power.

 

[Vault Citizen]

I dunno if I can agree with Britain on this one. Because he hacked the American Military, I think it would be fair to at-least give him a trial under a American court. BUT! Before people flip shit at me! I would support an alternative of him serving his sentence or punishment in Britain under the British legal system.

So basically he would get a American Trial for committing crimes against the United States, but his punishment must be carried out by the British system, and any ruling against him would have to fall within British Legalities.

Which means that if in America they gave him a Death Sentence, he would probably only get a Life Sentence in Britain if they don't believe in death sentencing.

The courts are currently considering whether or not to bring charges against him so he could still receive punishment, and no we haven't had the death penalty for decades over here.

I'm glad he hasn't been extradited, I don't believe he truly understood what was doing and I don't trust the US to not give him a dramatically disproportionate punishment.

One really good result of this is that extradition will now be sorted by the courts, who are, in my opinion the best people to sort it out.

While I do agree he may not have known what he was doing, I'd at-least charge him with some sort of minor felony such as illegal use of gathering information. Because if he can go and hack a Military's computer system on THAT kind of level, he must still have something going on in his brain that allows him to function on a normal level.

So while I can see the United States taking a extreme stance against him in a court of law, I think it's the only 'Fair' way to at-least get both sides to have a mutually satisfied conclusion. Even if it's just bringing in a few American Lawyers and having them present a case in a British court. So long as the case is presented by, and explained by a American legal team, I'm sure that they'd be fine with the British courts deciding on the actual charges IF they decided to press any.

Because if Mental Disability were a strong defense, then people would be able to get away with Murder and Theft all the time. It'll probably come down to assessing how much damage he actually caused, and figuring out whether or not he should be held directly responsible. Maybe the U.S. will even overlook the entire case if Britain is willing to financially compensate the U.S. for the number of computers that were completely rendered useless.

I'm sure people would still see it as a victory for Britain in defending the rights of it's people, and protecting a citizen from being taken away by a foreign power.

Personally I'd like to know if the US presented any proof that their damage assessment was accurate.

Why would we pay out for the computers? Even if the damage wer proven we didn't bust up the computers, America will just have to settle for what punishment he is given.

 

[miketehmage]

I'm glad to hear this, he's a UK citizen who committed a crime in the UK, as such, he should be trialed in the UK. I understand that the victim was the US, but it's not like he will get off free. He will be punished. Just under the law of his own country.

 

[Terramax]

You were just repaying us for all the times Eisenhower bent over backwards to kiss Britian's ass.

This is a serious question, can I ask what you mean by that? I've never been good at history, but this intrigues me.

EDIT: speaking as someone from the UK, I'm on the fence if this is good news or not. If an American hacked into our defenses and brought systems to a halt, would we be happy if the Yank had a trial in his home country?

I understand the man's symptoms, but the US does make a good point. Does anyone suffering a any form of disability have the right to avoid the consequences? In this case, we won't know unless he goes to court in the UK and he is properly sentenced. It's an interesting debate for which I don't know the answer to.

 

[SteewpidZombie]

I dunno if I can agree with Britain on this one. Because he hacked the American Military, I think it would be fair to at-least give him a trial under a American court. BUT! Before people flip shit at me! I would support an alternative of him serving his sentence or punishment in Britain under the British legal system.

So basically he would get a American Trial for committing crimes against the United States, but his punishment must be carried out by the British system, and any ruling against him would have to fall within British Legalities.

Which means that if in America they gave him a Death Sentence, he would probably only get a Life Sentence in Britain if they don't believe in death sentencing.

The courts are currently considering whether or not to bring charges against him so he could still receive punishment, and no we haven't had the death penalty for decades over here.

I'm glad he hasn't been extradited, I don't believe he truly understood what was doing and I don't trust the US to not give him a dramatically disproportionate punishment.

One really good result of this is that extradition will now be sorted by the courts, who are, in my opinion the best people to sort it out.

While I do agree he may not have known what he was doing, I'd at-least charge him with some sort of minor felony such as illegal use of gathering information. Because if he can go and hack a Military's computer system on THAT kind of level, he must still have something going on in his brain that allows him to function on a normal level.

So while I can see the United States taking a extreme stance against him in a court of law, I think it's the only 'Fair' way to at-least get both sides to have a mutually satisfied conclusion. Even if it's just bringing in a few American Lawyers and having them present a case in a British court. So long as the case is presented by, and explained by a American legal team, I'm sure that they'd be fine with the British courts deciding on the actual charges IF they decided to press any.

Because if Mental Disability were a strong defense, then people would be able to get away with Murder and Theft all the time. It'll probably come down to assessing how much damage he actually caused, and figuring out whether or not he should be held directly responsible. Maybe the U.S. will even overlook the entire case if Britain is willing to financially compensate the U.S. for the number of computers that were completely rendered useless.

I'm sure people would still see it as a victory for Britain in defending the rights of it's people, and protecting a citizen from being taken away by a foreign power.

Personally I'd like to know if the US presented any proof that their damage assessment was accurate.

Why would we pay out for the computers? Even if the damage wer proven we didn't bust up the computers, America will just have to settle for what punishment he is given.

Britain wants to protect the guy who is obviously guilty of committing a crime against a foreign nation, which would normally land someone into YEARS of imprisonment. It'd be the same if an American hacked the British military, and yet the United States let him off the hook.

So if you want to maintain peaceful ties with foreign nations, while still protecting your own citizens, sometimes you have to appeal to the foreign power. Americans want him tried for committing a crime against America, while Britain wants to protect him and charge him in his own country. BUT if Britain decides not to charge him with anything, Americans are going to be REALLY pissed, and it could result in the next American citizen who commits a crime in Britain being let off the hook as a result of animosity.

It all comes down to trying to make EVERYONE happy. If one side feels wronged, then it damages their relations and might have a long term impact on the opinions on how foreign laws should be treated. So if Britain decides not to punish the guy PERIOD, then they'll probably have to make some sort of compromise such as paying for the damaged computers.

Think of it as a personal crime. If someone wrecked your computer, or hacked into your personal information, and some stupid laws were protecting the criminal. You would atleast want to have your computer replaced, and your information to never get leaked.

 

[ecoho]

ok as long as he is charged appropriately in the UK i have no problems with this. That said if he gets off because hes got "mental problems" i will be seriously pissed.

 

[Vault Citizen]

I dunno if I can agree with Britain on this one. Because he hacked the American Military, I think it would be fair to at-least give him a trial under a American court. BUT! Before people flip shit at me! I would support an alternative of him serving his sentence or punishment in Britain under the British legal system.

So basically he would get a American Trial for committing crimes against the United States, but his punishment must be carried out by the British system, and any ruling against him would have to fall within British Legalities.

Which means that if in America they gave him a Death Sentence, he would probably only get a Life Sentence in Britain if they don't believe in death sentencing.

The courts are currently considering whether or not to bring charges against him so he could still receive punishment, and no we haven't had the death penalty for decades over here.

I'm glad he hasn't been extradited, I don't believe he truly understood what was doing and I don't trust the US to not give him a dramatically disproportionate punishment.

One really good result of this is that extradition will now be sorted by the courts, who are, in my opinion the best people to sort it out.

While I do agree he may not have known what he was doing, I'd at-least charge him with some sort of minor felony such as illegal use of gathering information. Because if he can go and hack a Military's computer system on THAT kind of level, he must still have something going on in his brain that allows him to function on a normal level.

So while I can see the United States taking a extreme stance against him in a court of law, I think it's the only 'Fair' way to at-least get both sides to have a mutually satisfied conclusion. Even if it's just bringing in a few American Lawyers and having them present a case in a British court. So long as the case is presented by, and explained by a American legal team, I'm sure that they'd be fine with the British courts deciding on the actual charges IF they decided to press any.

Because if Mental Disability were a strong defense, then people would be able to get away with Murder and Theft all the time. It'll probably come down to assessing how much damage he actually caused, and figuring out whether or not he should be held directly responsible. Maybe the U.S. will even overlook the entire case if Britain is willing to financially compensate the U.S. for the number of computers that were completely rendered useless.

I'm sure people would still see it as a victory for Britain in defending the rights of it's people, and protecting a citizen from being taken away by a foreign power.

Personally I'd like to know if the US presented any proof that their damage assessment was accurate.

Why would we pay out for the computers? Even if the damage wer proven we didn't bust up the computers, America will just have to settle for what punishment he is given.

Britain wants to protect the guy who is obviously guilty of committing a crime against a foreign nation, which would normally land someone into YEARS of imprisonment. It'd be the same if an American hacked the British military, and yet the United States let him off the hook.

So if you want to maintain peaceful ties with foreign nations, while still protecting your own citizens, sometimes you have to appeal to the foreign power. Americans want him tried for committing a crime against America, while Britain wants to protect him and charge him in his own country. BUT if Britain decides not to charge him with anything, Americans are going to be REALLY pissed, and it could result in the next American citizen who commits a crime in Britain being let off the hook as a result of animosity.

It all comes down to trying to make EVERYONE happy. If one side feels wronged, then it damages their relations and might have a long term impact on the opinions on how foreign laws should be treated. So if Britain decides not to punish the guy PERIOD, then they'll probably have to make some sort of compromise such as paying for the damaged computers.

Think of it as a personal crime. If someone wrecked your computer, or hacked into your personal information, and some stupid laws were protecting the criminal. You would atleast want to have your computer replaced, and your information to never get leaked.

I do think he should be charged just not as harshly as America would do it. I didn't realise that the paying for the commuters would be if he weren't charged, my bad.

 

[Gilhelmi]

After reading many of the comments on this article I have concluded...

Humanity is Doomed!!!

A couple of you realized the implications of foreign nationals hacking and damaging our equipment and then not being extradited, I could see China paying hackers then not pressing charges or extraditing (if we had an extradition treaty that is). Fortunately, it is the UK so he will likely spend time in jail. Unfortunately, it is the UK so they will cry false tears and let him out on good behavior. I wager that within 3 years of his release, he will again damage military hardware.

Y'all are going to need too grow up soon, if he was an American, he would be in jail right now.

Rivkin said "under that logic, anybody who claims some kind of physical or mental problem can commit crimes with immunity and get away with it."

God forbid people with physical or mental problems who commit victim-less crimes get help, just toss them in prison where they can be preyed on. Heck, why waste time on prison. Just kill them all and let God sort them out, right?

Sylveria, "victimless" means there were no victims. In this case the US government was the victim of damages caused by a Criminal hacker. I would like too see him get help also, but I want him too get that help on the inside of a prison cell. Modern Prisons afford many rights, privileges, access to good mental healthcare, and access to good regular healthcare.

You are the type that needs too grow up, people like Gary McKinnon are not going too say "sorry I wont do it again", they are going too keep going until they get what they want. And UFO files are not yet computerized (fully).

 

[Syzygy23]

Good for the UK, trying to extradite a guy for proving that the US shouldn't use norton to block hackers from getting into government computers is just plain stupid

*captcha "too salty", my thoughts on the flying dutchman from in and out

This cracked me up.

"But sir! The advertisement said Norton was the number one choice for defence against malicious software and viruses! You can't blame us for being given faulty intelligence reports!"

 

[Olrod]

Did he actually "hack" anything though, or did he walk right on in through their pathetically piss-poor "security"?

 

[CCountZero]

Would you prosecute a man with tourettes for swearing at a police officer?

This is essentially the same thing taken to the nth degree. This guy genuinely had no understanding of his actions because he does not understand the world in the same way other people would. Extraditing a mentally ill man who had no understanding of his situation to a foreign country would be wrong.

Personally I don't think he should be tried for the crime in the UK either. It's not about precedent, it's about having a decent amount of compassion towards a mentally ill human being whose been stuck in legal limbo for TEN years.

Also nice to see the government grow a pair over extradition. Now can we please sort out the ridiculous treaty brought in in a rush for TERRORISTS. Not as it's currently used, for anyone the USA feels like.

First of all, I'd like to point out, not to you specifically, that calling Aspergers a disability, is complete BS.

Sure, there are drawbacks, most of which involve not being as comfortable around other people, especially in groups of three-four or more.
But there's also a fat load of upsides, and one of the best ones is a higher-than-average intelligence.

I've dealt with a lot of people with Aspergers over the years, and one of the few traits that they've all shared, is a very well-developed sense of right and wrong, especially from a moral standpoint.
I say few, because they're just as different from each other as neurotypicals, or "normals" if you will.
An autistic diagnosis does not have anything to do with amorality. It's fairly common for us to lack some empathy, but that's not the same as not knowing right from wrong.

If my personal experience is anything to go by, this guy knew exactly what he was doing. He just used his highly-developed moral compass, and reached the conclusion that what he was doing was right.

As for the whole extradition thing, I think it should be clear to anyone who's familiar with the autistic spectrum that no autistic belongs in a general population. It would be cruel and unusual punishment, possibly bordering on torture. Hell, 98% of us might well prefer solitary confinement, if anything.

Of course, it could also be that fellow inmates would treat him in a less than humane way, inside the walls.

I'll finish by adding that I don't have much in the way of admiration for the American prison system, nor legal system, nor political system. So yeah.

 

[dyre]

aww, so we don't get to shove him indefinitely into some CIA black site?

j/k, good to see the British government showing some spine

Fine, try him in the UK then. So long as we're not mistakenly under the assumption that you can hack Pentagon computers and get off with absolutely no repercussions just because you have a disorder.

Yeah, those UFO files could be used against America to steal freedom or something.

Maybe even copy the Big Mac secret sauce.


They should hire the guy if he managed to break into the fucking Pentagon.

Either that, or their system is fucking awful.

IIRC, the system actually wasn't even password protected.

 

[dyre]

snip

To be fair, you can also blame the Dulles brothers for a lot of that Mossadegh business. They were the ones who actually convinced Eisenhower that the Iranians were some kind of communist threat.

Also, you forgot to mention him ordering the CIA backed coup in Guatemala

 

[Charli]

Did he actually "hack" anything though, or did he walk right on in through their pathetically piss-poor "security"?

If memory serves, it was this. Had he actually TAKEN information or maliciously screwed up their system in a way, I'm sure the sentence would read differently.

U.S. listen, we're grown ups, we can punish our own kids, the only reason we made a fuss about it is that you walked in and proclaimed yourself the head of the punishment police and cried that he peeked under your skirt, that's what we were a little miffed about, you can still tell us what he did and why he's a naughty boy, but we'd like to be able to dole out punishment to our citizens. It's a question of dignity when our criminals have to be sent to you to be punished. Thaaaat kinda sucks some of our authority away on the home pitch doesn't it?

This does not equate to - 'gets off scott free', I doubt he's going to be allowed near an internet connection without severe watch from his provider and the government EVER again after he serves whatever sentence he's given.

And your embassy is the one who should be overseeing the trial to ensure that no foul play is taking place and if you feel the punishment is not sufficient to argue and debate it with the British court system.

 

[Kopikatsu]

This actually is one case where the defendant should be extradited to the US, because his crime involves the US rather heavily.

We have suicide watch in our prisons. Just stick him in a straight jacket and he'll be fine.

You also execute the retarded... I would try to commit suicide at EVERY opportunity if I was told I were to be imprisoned in America and I am entirely sound of mind. Your prison system is a disgrace and hopefully this embarrassment causes reform.

Actually, inmates on death row are forced to take three separate mental competency exams under the supervision of three separate state-certified psychiatrists a few days before they're slated to be executed. If they fail even one, then they're declared mentally incompetent and cannot be executed. (This is for both intelligence and sanity)

Which is stupid and a huge waste of both time and resources, but whatever.

 

[Eri]

I love all the people here who say he had no idea what he was doing. Bullshit. BULLSHIT.

You can't "accidentally" hack a government computer, let alone almost 100 of them. This isn't like he got into a car and by chance hit a pedestrian and he couldn't help it. Again, you can't just "accidentally" hack a computer.