The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[Extradition] U.K. Citizen faces up to 10 years in U.S. jail because of his stream site
SquiddyBiscuit
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Source:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086310/Richard-ODwyer-extradition-Student-faces-10-years-US-jail-echo-Gary-McKinnon.html
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:
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.
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.
SquiddyBiscuit on
0
Posts
No American should be extradited to face hate speech or holocaust denial-related charges in Europe, for example.
Rigorous Scholarship
Edit: Also, never....ever link the daily mail.
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
Steam: pazython
lol
lets hug this out
They're sending Batman to retrieve him.
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.
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.
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.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
My God, you're right. We'll send you everybody who bought booze before they turned 21 over here too.
Do you support the death penalty for trespassing?
Edit: beaten.
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.
My brain hurts just from having to talk about it.
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.
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.
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?
Nick?
Uh.. Ed?
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.
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.
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?
But yeah, this is pretty much bullshit.
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.
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?