Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Extradition] U.K. Citizen faces up to 10 years in U.S. jail because of his stream site

SquiddyBiscuitSquiddyBiscuit Registered User regular
edited January 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
Source:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086310/Richard-ODwyer-extradition-Student-faces-10-years-US-jail-echo-Gary-McKinnon.html
A British student faces up to a decade in a U.S. prison for actions which are not even a crime in the UK.

Campaigners say Richard O’Dwyer, 23, is being abandoned by his country in the same way as computer hacker Gary McKinnon.

Mr O’Dwyer is accused of listing places where films and TV programmes could be illegally downloaded, on a website he ran from his university bedroom in Sheffield.
Legal experts say this is not an offence under British law, and he did not download any of the entertainment himself.

Basically, a British citizen is apparently at risk of being handed over to the U.S. because of a site he created which hosts links to torrents and streams of various TV-shows and movies. Whether or not you think this is wrong (it's legal in the UK, and possibly in the U.S as well), it is alarming how often the U.S successfully extradite persons from the U.K:
Since 2004, 29 UK nationals or dual nationals have been extradited from Britain to the U.S. Only five Americans were extradited from the U.S. to Britain.
They also want urgent reform to the lopsided 2003 Extradition Act – which gives far greater protection to Americans than it does to their British counterparts.

The U.S. requires ‘sufficient evidence to establish probable cause’ before agreeing to extradite anyone to the UK, while Britons going in the opposite direction are not afforded the same protection.

To no surprise, the U.S embassy is against any change to the law in favour of British citizens, but what I find even more alarming is the fact that it's even possible to extradite citizens for such a relatively minor crime such as potential copyright infringement. I personally am of the opinion that this should only be the case for more serious crime (and by serious, I mean violent crimes), but I'm curious of what you guys think of extradition and this case.

steam_sig.png
«13

Posts

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    This kind of thing is pretty common knowledge in the US, which has been dealing with the UK's "libel" and blasphemy laws for years.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    I'm okay with the principle that you shouldn't be extradited for something that isn't a crime in your home country.

    No American should be extradited to face hate speech or holocaust denial-related charges in Europe, for example.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    I commented on it in chat couple of days ago. It's the single dumbest ruling I've seen. The UK should be disbanded as a country and accepted into the Union.

    Edit: Also, never....ever link the daily mail.

    zeeny on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    zeeny wrote:
    I commented on it in chat couple of days ago. It's the single dumbest ruling I've seen. The UK should be disbanded as a country and accepted into the Union.

    This is a pretty failed hyperbole.

    Dis' wrote: »
    Cancer is when cells stop letting the body mooch off their hard work - clearly a community of like-minded cells should isolate themselves and do the best job each can do, even if the rest of the body collapses!
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    I think this is just our revenge for them press-ganging our sailors all those years ago.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Correct me if I'm mistaken: wasn't McKinnon the guy who broke into secured government files in order to try and find proof that the government was covering-up alien abductions?

    That whole thing was pretty fucked-up (and it was ridiculous that the UK basically handed him over).


    And no, this guy shouldn't be extradited and imprisoned for 10 years for engaging in piracy.

    The Ender on
    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    As a us citizen I will never forgive the uk if they allow this to happen.

  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    This is mind blowing to me, and then I found out its part of a (Treaty?) we have had with the UK for like over 6 years now. Why any other nation would sign this (apparently it doesnt work the other way, and we recently told them to get fucked when it came to their libel laws) is beyond me.

    steam_sig.png
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote:
    Correct me if I'm mistaken: wasn't McKinnon the guy who broke into secured government files in order to try and find proof that the government was covering-up alien abductions?

    That whole thing was pretty fucked-up (and it was ridiculous that the UK basically handed him over).


    And no, this guy shouldn't be extradited and imprisoned for 10 years for engaging in piracy.

    No this is a seperate example of justice being buggered

  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    Wait, I thought you had to actually commit the crime at the country in question in order to be extradited there? How the hell can the U.S charge him for a crime he committed in England? Or are there other aspects of extradition that I'm missing here?

    3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | Wii U: zython
    Steam: pazython
    Lv 90 Tauren Shaman Lv 90 Pandaren Monk
  • TheOrangeTheOrange Registered User regular
    The internet is amarican, haven't you heared?

  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck you must go on i cant go on ill go onRegistered User regular
    the argument is that the websites dns was american

    lol

    obF2Wuw.png
  • TheOrangeTheOrange Registered User regular
    I stand by my previous statment !!

  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo Crushing pussy; Marry a man Registered User regular
    It is really horrifying that he's having to appeal this. The media coverage has been a bit slanted on it. There's been no real commentary on just why it's not okay to extradite people to any countries where their actions could have been considered a crime. While that should be self evident, I've not getting that impression from what I've been reading.

    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck you must go on i cant go on ill go onRegistered User regular
    i stand by you too bro

    lets hug this out

    obF2Wuw.png
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    TheOrange wrote:
    The internet is amarican, haven't you heared?

    They're sending Batman to retrieve him.

    steam_sig.png
  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    This is mind blowing to me, and then I found out its part of a (Treaty?) we have had with the UK for like over 6 years now. Why any other nation would sign this (apparently it doesnt work the other way, and we recently told them to get fucked when it came to their libel laws) is beyond me.

    US and UK diplomats worked out a pretty equal extradition treaty between themselves. Since the UK was reviewing all its extradition laws in the 2003 act and there was a lot of diplomatic pressure from up top (due to 9/11), the UK rolled the provisions of the treaty into law right away. The US then got back to them with 'Hey it turns out our side is unconstitutional and the senate would never agree, so we're not going to do our half, but no takebacks or we'll make a big fuss lol", and the bell-ends in Westminster went along with it because whatever advantage they get from being in Washington's good books outweighs the rights of a few citizens.

  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    zeeny wrote:
    I commented on it in chat couple of days ago. It's the single dumbest ruling I've seen. The UK should be disbanded as a country and accepted into the Union.

    This is a pretty failed hyperbole.

    Not really. If a country is going to respect extradition treaties lacking reciprocity past a certain point, it may as well not bother with foreign policy.

    zeeny on
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    I will lose all respect for the UK if they allow it. Where's yer balls laddies?

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    It is really horrifying that he's having to appeal this. The media coverage has been a bit slanted on it. There's been no real commentary on just why it's not okay to extradite people to any countries where their actions could have been considered a crime. While that should be self evident, I've not getting that impression from what I've been reading.

    It makes a lot more sense when you remember that you can organize or prepare something from outside of a country. Would you feel the same if he'd mailed anthrax, a bomb, or cocaine into the US? hell, I doubt anything Osama did was illegal in Taliban Afghanistan.

  • BogartBogart Registered User regular
    That is quite the comparison.

  • Mojo_JojoMojo_Jojo Crushing pussy; Marry a man Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    It is really horrifying that he's having to appeal this. The media coverage has been a bit slanted on it. There's been no real commentary on just why it's not okay to extradite people to any countries where their actions could have been considered a crime. While that should be self evident, I've not getting that impression from what I've been reading.

    It makes a lot more sense when you remember that you can organize or prepare something from outside of a country. Would you feel the same if he'd mailed anthrax, a bomb, or cocaine into the US? hell, I doubt anything Osama did was illegal in Taliban Afghanistan.

    My God, you're right. We'll send you everybody who bought booze before they turned 21 over here too.

    Homogeneous distribution of your varieties of amuse-gueule
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    It is really horrifying that he's having to appeal this. The media coverage has been a bit slanted on it. There's been no real commentary on just why it's not okay to extradite people to any countries where their actions could have been considered a crime. While that should be self evident, I've not getting that impression from what I've been reading.

    It makes a lot more sense when you remember that you can organize or prepare something from outside of a country. Would you feel the same if he'd mailed anthrax, a bomb, or cocaine into the US? hell, I doubt anything Osama did was illegal in Taliban Afghanistan.

    Do you support the death penalty for trespassing?

    Edit: beaten.

    zeeny on
  • BethrynBethryn Registered User regular
    bowen wrote:
    Where's yer balls laddies?
    Somewhere in the White House, back from when Blair handed them to Bush on a silver platter.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Wonderful. Get them back. We'll hold the politicians down for you.

    bowen on
  • TetraNitroCubaneTetraNitroCubane Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    the argument is that the websites dns was american

    lol

    Aside: This is how SOPA and PIPA define a US vs. foreign website - by the DNS. If it's a US run DNS, it's considered a domestic site. The mind boggles.

    On the topic of O’Dwyer's website, it seems that the site was merely hosting links to offending material. He was not actually hosting any infringing material himself, but pointing people toward where to find it. While the legality of hosting copyrighted material is rather cut-and-dry, I can't help but feel that hosting links is in no way an offense worthy of anything but a letter saying "Hey, knock it off".

    If providing links to such sites is a serious criminal offense, the Feds ought to be storming Google any moment now.

    TetraNitroCubane on
    qwlru.png
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    Isn't that exactly what SOPA/PIPA is for? To prevent linking.

    My brain hurts just from having to talk about it.

  • TetraNitroCubaneTetraNitroCubane Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Yeah, pretty much. Ostensibly SOPA/PIPA are mostly for preventing infringement of material by foreign sites. However, because there's no way for US law to reach most places where that goes on, the laws are essentially constructed so that any US sites will have to 'black hole' those offending foreign sites. In other words, wholesale takedown of any domestic site with an offending link at the DNS level, and the complete exclusion of that site from search engines, rather than removal of the actual offending material.

    Those laws, and this case, are a bit like arresting a guy who knows where a drug dealer might be, because damn, that drug dealer is across the state line.

    Edit: Actually, it's even more absurd, considering that they're extraditing from the UK based on the DNS.

    TetraNitroCubane on
    qwlru.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    It is really horrifying that he's having to appeal this. The media coverage has been a bit slanted on it. There's been no real commentary on just why it's not okay to extradite people to any countries where their actions could have been considered a crime. While that should be self evident, I've not getting that impression from what I've been reading.

    It makes a lot more sense when you remember that you can organize or prepare something from outside of a country. Would you feel the same if he'd mailed anthrax, a bomb, or cocaine into the US? hell, I doubt anything Osama did was illegal in Taliban Afghanistan.

    My God, you're right. We'll send you everybody who bought booze before they turned 21 over here too.

    If you're mail ordering it from the US. I mean, we've been dealing with Britain's bullshit of announcing jurisdiction of libel suits for any book anyone has ever brought into Britain. The reason he's being charged by the US is because his activities extended to the US. You can't just use an RC to commit crimes across the border and not expect to be charged.

  • darleysamdarleysam Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    bowen wrote:
    I will lose all respect for the UK if they allow it. Where's yer balls laddies?

    balls_1409445c.jpg

    Not really sure how the Shadow Chancellor's going to solve this, but he's about the only high profile guy in British politics who looks like he could tell America to extradite their heads from their arses.
    Isn't that right, Dave?
    30-david-Cameron-415.jpg

    Nick?
    clegg-image-1-260473195.jpg

    Uh.. Ed?
    ed-miliband1.jpg

    darleysam on
  • The Fourth EstateThe Fourth Estate Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    It is really horrifying that he's having to appeal this. The media coverage has been a bit slanted on it. There's been no real commentary on just why it's not okay to extradite people to any countries where their actions could have been considered a crime. While that should be self evident, I've not getting that impression from what I've been reading.

    It makes a lot more sense when you remember that you can organize or prepare something from outside of a country. Would you feel the same if he'd mailed anthrax, a bomb, or cocaine into the US? hell, I doubt anything Osama did was illegal in Taliban Afghanistan.

    My God, you're right. We'll send you everybody who bought booze before they turned 21 over here too.

    If you're mail ordering it from the US. I mean, we've been dealing with Britain's bullshit of announcing jurisdiction of libel suits for any book anyone has ever brought into Britain. The reason he's being charged by the US is because his activities extended to the US. You can't just use an RC to commit crimes across the border and not expect to be charged.

    It should be noted that libel reform is in the works, and the most egregious libel cases have all involved the same judge, who has garnered more than his fair share of rebukes from more senior judges in his not very illustrious career.

    The Fourth Estate on
    steam_sig.png
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    It is really horrifying that he's having to appeal this. The media coverage has been a bit slanted on it. There's been no real commentary on just why it's not okay to extradite people to any countries where their actions could have been considered a crime. While that should be self evident, I've not getting that impression from what I've been reading.

    It makes a lot more sense when you remember that you can organize or prepare something from outside of a country. Would you feel the same if he'd mailed anthrax, a bomb, or cocaine into the US? hell, I doubt anything Osama did was illegal in Taliban Afghanistan.

    My God, you're right. We'll send you everybody who bought booze before they turned 21 over here too.

    If you're mail ordering it from the US. I mean, we've been dealing with Britain's bullshit of announcing jurisdiction of libel suits for any book anyone has ever brought into Britain. The reason he's being charged by the US is because his activities extended to the US. You can't just use an RC to commit crimes across the border and not expect to be charged.

    Yes, yes, we get it, you hate everywhere except the USA.

    But that doesn't make this the same as mailbombs, and two wrongs don't make a right, so your anger at whatever the dirty dirty foreigners have done to you still doesn't make any of this situation acceptable.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    The reason this is so ridiculous is because IP law is ridiculous. It is the single most irrational aspect of American law, the most painstakingly warped piece of our "Constitutional justice" which we amend every so many years to take away other freedoms and reward certain big businesses with a perpetual right to control creativity and innovation through ownership of ideas. So the U.S. is not only worst at copyright, not only worst by constantly exporting our copyright laws internationally through treaties and organizations, but we now apparently will just go ahead and start extraditing people from foreign countries who don't adopt our laws as fast.

    What's next, the CIA disappearing the operators of The Pirate Bay for "terrorizing the American economy? I wish I could say that was entirely sarcasm but I wonder how far off from true that might be in another ten to twenty years given current legal trends?

    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    To no surprise, the U.S embassy is against any change to the law in favour of British citizens, but what I find even more alarming is the fact that it's even possible to extradite citizens for such a relatively minor crime such as potential copyright infringement. I personally am of the opinion that this should only be the case for more serious crime (and by serious, I mean violent crimes), but I'm curious of what you guys think of extradition and this case.
    Violent crime =/= Serious crime. And vice-versa.

    But yeah, this is pretty much bullshit.

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    poshniallo wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mojo_Jojo wrote:
    It is really horrifying that he's having to appeal this. The media coverage has been a bit slanted on it. There's been no real commentary on just why it's not okay to extradite people to any countries where their actions could have been considered a crime. While that should be self evident, I've not getting that impression from what I've been reading.

    It makes a lot more sense when you remember that you can organize or prepare something from outside of a country. Would you feel the same if he'd mailed anthrax, a bomb, or cocaine into the US? hell, I doubt anything Osama did was illegal in Taliban Afghanistan.

    My God, you're right. We'll send you everybody who bought booze before they turned 21 over here too.

    If you're mail ordering it from the US. I mean, we've been dealing with Britain's bullshit of announcing jurisdiction of libel suits for any book anyone has ever brought into Britain. The reason he's being charged by the US is because his activities extended to the US. You can't just use an RC to commit crimes across the border and not expect to be charged.

    Yes, yes, we get it, you hate everywhere except the USA.

    But that doesn't make this the same as mailbombs, and two wrongs don't make a right, so your anger at whatever the dirty dirty foreigners have done to you still doesn't make any of this situation acceptable.

    My only problem is with the idea that standing on the other side of an invisible line on the ground makes you "safe" when your activities extend across that line. You can (and probably should) argue against the law, but the fact is that his operations extended into the US and violated US laws on US soil.

  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Bagginses wrote:
    My only problem is with the idea that standing on the other side of an invisible line on the ground makes you "safe" when your activities extend across that line. You can (and probably should) argue against the law, but the fact is that his operations extended into the US and violated US laws on US soil.

    The Internet makes this a real problem. Imagine in Mexico drugs are legal, and here they are illegal. This is like us sending in Seal Team six to firebomb Mexican plantations because we got tired of arresting stoners crossing the border with pot. How in that case is it the fault of the grower? If what he did is legal in the U.K. then it shouldn't matter that the internet crosses borders, because the internet requires you to request something before it arrives. This means that it's no where near the same as attempting to say, shoot someone from one side of the border. Because he nor anything he did can cross a border without it first being requested directly from someone else on other the side of that border. Plus filtering it by nationality would either be too costly or really ineffective and utterly useless. So it's not like he could've realistically done anything to prevent the site from being viewed elsewhere that would both be effective and allow his web page to remain free.

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2012
    Bagginses wrote:
    My only problem is with the idea that standing on the other side of an invisible line on the ground makes you "safe" when your activities extend across that line. You can (and probably should) argue against the law, but the fact is that his operations extended into the US and violated US laws on US soil.

    The Internet makes this a real problem. Imagine in Mexico drugs are legal, and here they are illegal. This is like us sending in Seal Team six to firebomb Mexican plantations because we got tired of arresting stoners crossing the border with pot. How in that case is it the fault of the grower? If what he did is legal in the U.K. then it shouldn't matter that the internet crosses borders, because the internet requires you to request something before it arrives. This means that it's no where near the same as attempting to say, shoot someone from one side of the border. Because he nor anything he did can cross a border without it first being requested directly from someone else.

    What if the grower took orders from the US himself and hired people to smuggle it in? Hell, what about wire and identity fraud based out of African nations that don't have up to date laws for that sort of thing?

    Bagginses on
  • Fallout2manFallout2man Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Bagginses wrote:
    What if the grower took orders from the US himself and hired people to smuggle it in? Hell, what about wire and identity fraud based out of African nations that don't have up to date laws for that sort of thing?

    1: Multi-state solution, in that case there's an established business relationship. But this still would need to be provable in a court of law. Are you saying in this case there's evidence that this guy was directly responsible for using money to hire other people to commit crimes here?

    2: Wire/Identity fraud are tragedies and having worked E-commerce before I feel sorry for people who face these problems but realistically what are we going to do other than perhaps re-regulate banking here to make that very difficult to get away with effectively?
    Wire Fraud is a banking problem and it unfortunately can't be settled without some sort of global framework to regulate the banks. Doing anything else is just going to be a lopsided approach to justice and most likely be practiced very unfairly.

    If someone intentionally abuses the limitations of our borders to organize crimes here then there is always some merit to extradition. However in this case as far as I'm aware this guy just ran a site that linked to TV episodes elsewhere on the web and did it for his own enjoyment. This hardly fits any scenario where he's evily trying to destroy our entertainment industry and of course IP law in general being what it is, makes this extradition even more odious.

    Fallout2man on
    On Ignorance:
    Kana wrote:
    If the best you can come up with against someone who's patently ignorant is to yell back at him, "Yeah? Well there's BOOKS, and they say you're WRONG!"

    Then honestly you're not coming out of this looking great either.
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Bagginses wrote:
    What if the grower took orders from the US himself and hired people to smuggle it in? Hell, what about wire and identity fraud based out of African nations that don't have up to date laws for that sort of thing?

    1: Multi-state solution, in that case there's an established business relationship. But this still would need to be provable in a court of law. Are you saying in this case there's evidence that this guy was directly responsible for using money to hire other people to commit crimes here?

    2: Wire/Identity fraud are tragedies and having worked E-commerce before I feel sorry for people who face these problems but realistically what are we going to do other than perhaps re-regulate banking here to make that very difficult to get away with effectively?
    Wire Fraud is a banking problem and it unfortunately can't be settled without some sort of global framework to regulate the banks. Doing anything else is just going to be a lopsided approach to justice and most likely be practiced very unfairly.

    If someone intentionally abuses the limitations of our borders to organize crimes here then there is always some merit to extradition. However in this case as far as I'm aware this guy just ran a site that linked to TV episodes elsewhere on the web and did it for his own enjoyment. This hardly fits any scenario where he's evily trying to destroy our entertainment industry and of course IP law in general being what it is, makes this extradition even more odious.

    I don't think any of that actually touches my argument.

  • CasedOutCasedOut Registered User
    edited January 2012
    Bagginses wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    What if the grower took orders from the US himself and hired people to smuggle it in? Hell, what about wire and identity fraud based out of African nations that don't have up to date laws for that sort of thing?

    1: Multi-state solution, in that case there's an established business relationship. But this still would need to be provable in a court of law. Are you saying in this case there's evidence that this guy was directly responsible for using money to hire other people to commit crimes here?

    2: Wire/Identity fraud are tragedies and having worked E-commerce before I feel sorry for people who face these problems but realistically what are we going to do other than perhaps re-regulate banking here to make that very difficult to get away with effectively?
    Wire Fraud is a banking problem and it unfortunately can't be settled without some sort of global framework to regulate the banks. Doing anything else is just going to be a lopsided approach to justice and most likely be practiced very unfairly.

    If someone intentionally abuses the limitations of our borders to organize crimes here then there is always some merit to extradition. However in this case as far as I'm aware this guy just ran a site that linked to TV episodes elsewhere on the web and did it for his own enjoyment. This hardly fits any scenario where he's evily trying to destroy our entertainment industry and of course IP law in general being what it is, makes this extradition even more odious.

    I don't think any of that actually touches my argument.

    I think you missed the most relevant part of one of falloutmans earlier arguments. He made a website in his country that for all intents and purposes he couldn't stop people in the United States from accessing.

    edit: Does this mean that someone in the UK can never make a website that violates any foreign law?

    CasedOut on
    452773-1.png
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.