-by the usual suspect(s).
Accused hacker Lauri Love can be extradited from Great Britain to stand trial in the US on charges of hacking into US government computers, Judge Nina Tempia has ruled at Westminster Magistrates' Court. Love reportedly sat "stony-faced" as the judge delivered her verdict. He has been given permission to appeal. El Reg's in- …
A couple of reasons spring to mind
* The NSA already have access to our serveurs, so they don't care if Americans try and hack what they already have access to.
* Our data is already on Americans servers.... Thinking Cloud here... Facebook, Google etc
* We don't actually have much that interests the American hackers, they are already too busy hacking stuff at home.
* They don't have the same skill sets or desires.
* The British servers run on DialUp Compuserve Speed lines at every one falls asleep whilst waiting.
* The Brits don't want to offend the Americans, thereby avoiding political problems.
* Most American don't even know where Britain lies.
* Our maybe we are being hacked all the time and just don't know it..
Most American don't even know where Britain lies
Wrong (well almost)
They love the Royal Family. well, if the mags at the supermarket checkouts are to be believed.
Many seem to think that we all live in a 'Downton' like environment.
When asked where I come from some seem to think that Hampshire (UK) is somehow the same as New Hampshire(USA). Having lived in the latter it pains me to correct them.
According to the BBC article:
"In England and Wales, the maximum sentence for crimes such as those of which Mr Love is accused is two years and eight months."
But in the USA, Love's lawyers claim, he could be sentenced to 99 year in prison.
So why is extradition to the USA being allowed? Clearly the potential penalty, if accurate, is grossly inappropriate, from a UK perspective, and seems like something more in keeping with a totalitarian regime that seeks to terrorise opponents using the "justice" system.
I'm all for punishing hackers found guilty of committing crimes, but the sentences have to be appropriate to the damage caused; who did Mr Love kill?
Paragraph 15 has equivalent UK maximum sentence of 14 years.
Love's US counsel indicated sentencing guideline would be 10-15 years. Of course the US court could opt for maximums but that will be risky: Subsequent UK extradition decisions will be guided by this new reality and so more likely to fail.
The comment on Section 3 is interesting; the US routinely uses techniques that are banned in Europe as incompatible with human rights - ankle chains and sleep deprivation, for example.
But the judge's thinking is typified by this quote (she says this twice):
"Millions of dollars’ worth of damage was caused"
Which is a completely evidence free assertion that she's happy to take a face value.
Like the House of Lords famously said about boxing, these extraditions to the US are objectively illegal (no right to a fair trial, inadequate human rights) but they continue to be legal because they always have been.
The millions of pounds worth of damage is what the prosecution will need to show and convince the jury of (and the defence will try to disprove) in the actual trial.
For the purposes of extradition to face trial, the claim only has to be plausible.
Wikipedia on the US UK extradition arrangements:
"Among other provisions Part 2 of the Act: Extradition to category 2 territories (non-European Arrest warrant territories) removed the requirement on the USA to provide prima facie evidence in extraditions from the UK, requiring instead only reasonable suspicion. This was necessary to redress the previous imbalance against the USA under the 1870 Act, as the UK did not have to provide the more onerous prima facie evidence to extradite from the USA. The requirement for the UK is to show probable cause"
Why? The *magistrate* can only go by guidelines, they arent judges and there is no jury. There is an extradition policy with the US, the US have presented all the correct papaerwork so they rubber stamped it. An appeal will be heard by a proper judge so might have more interpretation leeway.
Blame the system for the silliness.
Mr Love will be offered a plea bargain. He'll admit to a lesser offence and get six months to a year inside.
Everyone will be happy: the prosecution because they've secured an easy conviction; the defence and Mr L because they've got off relatively lightly.
And no one will ever know exactly what he did, whether it caused any harm, or whether it was actually bad at all. But justice, mmkay?
If he goes to the USA then all bets and agreements made here are off.
The prosecutors are subject to re-election so naturally, they will want to be re-elected so they need to show that they are doing their job by demanding the maximum for thei heinous crime despite the lack of evidence to show the actual damage done.
999 years is not impossible.
99 years per offence to run consequetively not concurrently.
whereas, 14 years for the same crime here.
Just don't break any US law.
As many US laws apply to the whole planet you really don't know if you have done until the Feds come a knocking at 04:00.
Orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to secret inquiry, lost again, finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters do not come cheap. Instead of our heroic IT specialists defending this great nation against the hordes of cyber pedoterrorists they have been trapped in endless meetings just explaining what the defendant did. Wether or not he actually caused physical harm to the computers or compromised sensitive data is both irrelevant & classified. The man hours alone wasted dealing with this miscreant warrant lengthy incarceration...
of everybody who thought bringing this case to trial was a good idea.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021