back to article Should Computer Misuse Act offences committed in UK be prosecuted in UK?

At this week’s Conservative Party Conference there will be a lot of talk about making Brexit happen, putting the “Great” back in Britain, and taking back control of our laws. However, there is one law where the government is reluctant to express much enthusiasm for sovereignty at all; it is the Computer Misuse Act (CMA) 1990. …

  1. mark 120

    Seems simple to me

    If you break into / illegally access a server or system, then you're prosecuted in the place that the server or system resides.

    To put it another way, if I co-ordinated a bank robbery in another country, where would I be tried? I'm fairly sure it wouldn't usually be in Britain.

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Seems simple to me

      Let's continue the analogy.

      If you burgle an ATM terminal of a Swiss bank in UK are you tried in UK or Switzerland?

      The issue with computer crime is exactly that:

      1. There are on average up to ten intermediate points in a a complex attack each of which has an equally valid claim to the scalp of the attacker.

      2. There are multiple targets in a lot of attacks which quite often are in multiple jurisdictions, each of which has an equally valid claim to the scalp as well.

      Trying computer (as well as some types of fraud) crime at the point of source is the _ONLY_ way of getting around this. This unfortunately means that some playground bullies which think that their playground rule book applies to everyone and they can do a wedgie on anyone they like will have to get into the orderly queue of filing a complaint to the principal so he can compile it and act on it.

      The downside is that the current practice of trying at a "chosen" target location allows to set-up abductions and renditions of foreign citizens traveling abroad so they are extradited for trial. Switching to "try at source" means that we have to cooperate with their legal systems and try them at source which quite often is simply not on the menu.

      1. AMBxx Silver badge

        Re: Seems simple to me

        Careful what you wish for - fancy being prosecuted in North Korea?

        1. mark 120

          Re: Seems simple to me

          Fancy it, no. Nor would I have the right to whinge about it if that's the published consequence of the activity.

          1. P. Lee
            Big Brother

            Re: Seems simple to me

            >Fancy it, no. Nor would I have the right to whinge about it if that's the published consequence of the activity.

            It's just a prosecution, no-one's saying you've actually done something wrong. I'm *sure* you'll be found not guilty and returned promptly and unharmed.

        2. Squander Two

          Re: Seems simple to me

          The UK has an extradition agreement with North Korea? Bloody hell. How did this not make the news?

        3. James 51

          Re: Seems simple to me

          What's the extradition treaty like with them?

        4. tr1ck5t3r

          Re: Seems simple to me

          "Careful what you wish for - fancy being prosecuted in North Korea?"

          There's prisoners in the UK digging their flesh out alive such is the UK's psychological softpower if you didnt know. Whilst entrapment is illegal in the UK, its not in the US. What the SIS cant do, they get 5Eyes members to do for them. Sometimes I think the public are just pawns in a global chess game played by psychopaths. Divide and conquer, been in use since Roman times, as seen in education, media outlets and so on....

          1. heyrick Silver badge

            Sometimes I think the public are just pawns in a global chess game played by psychopaths.

            Cannot upvote this enough...

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Sometimes I think the public are just pawns in a global chess game played by psychopaths.

              Is being "psychopathic" a "good" management trait ? (apparently)

          2. Kurt Meyer

            Re: Seems simple to me

            @ tr1ck5t3r

            "Whilst entrapment is illegal in the UK..."

            Sam Allardyce?

            1. James 51

              Re: Seems simple to me

              He wasn't entrapped into breaking a law but the rules of the governing body.

              1. Kurt Meyer

                Re: Seems simple to me

                @ James 51

                "He wasn't entrapped into breaking a law but the rules of the governing body."

                Oh, that sort of entrapment.

                Well, that's alright then.

                1. James 51

                  Re: Seems simple to me

                  I didn't say it was alright, just why he and the journalists aren't potentially in legal trouble.

          3. Squander Two

            Entrapment

            Entrapment is not illegal in the UK. Evidence gathered via entrapment is inadmissable in court. Not the same thing. The police don't get prosecuted if they commit entrapment; they just fail in their attempt to prosecute someone else.

            1. Jason Bloomberg

              Re: Entrapment

              Evidence gathered via entrapment is inadmissable in court.

              I do not believe that is true in the UK. The courts have long held that "evidence is evidence", no matter how obtained. If there has been any crime or abuse of process involved in procuring that evidence it is a separate matter which can be dealt with independently, it doesn't invalidate the evidence.

              It is up to the court and jury to determine if the evidence presented is an indicator of guilt or not, whether it is genuine sentiment or came about simply through that entrapment.

              1. Squander Two

                Re: Entrapment

                Oh, I stand corrected. Thanks for that.

                I fell into the trap of assuming the commenter was basically correct about entrapment and correcting his use of the term "illegal".

                I do know a load of speeding convictions have been nullified on the grounds that the police speed-traps were hidden and that that constituted entrapment (which seems a bit odd to me, but hey).

                1. Trigonoceps occipitalis
                  Angel

                  Re: Entrapment

                  " ... nullified on the grounds that the police speed-traps were hidden ... "

                  Can you quote an English/Welsh case before a judge where a conviction was overturned because the speed trap was hidden? Even better would be an Appeal Court or Supreme Court decision that would be binding on the courts.

                  There are many pages of guidance about the visibility of speed cameras because they are a road safety measure, not for raising revenue (stop sniggering at the back!) I concede that there may be a few occasions where the Safety Camera Partnership may have decided not to prosecute but I have yet to hear of a case in court where hidden camera has succeeded as a defence.

              2. wikkity

                Re: Entrapment

                The Court can grant a stay if they deem it to be entrapment, i.e. they presented the defendant an opportunity to commit a crime they would not normally have done otherwise, but that is dependant on circumstance, e.g. a test purchase is ok if they had good reason to suspect someone but they can't go and leave something lying about to tempt someone to steal or offer random people money for doing something illegal.

              3. Mark 65

                Re: Entrapment

                If there has been any crime or abuse of process involved in procuring that evidence it is a separate matter which can be dealt with independently, it doesn't invalidate the evidence.

                Pretty sure that if there is a crime in gathering evidence it is inadmissible else you could just torture confessions out of whomever you liked.

                1. Vic

                  Re: Entrapment

                  Pretty sure that if there is a crime in gathering evidence it is inadmissible

                  That's US law. It's rather different on this side of the Atlantic :-(

                  Vic.

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Seems simple to me

          I get your point, however its highly unlikely anyone from the UK would be extradited to North Korea. If anyone hacked NK's server's they'd probably be a hero in the West. Whereas getting extradited to the US is well on the cards.

          Every time I read articles like this I just start humming The The's song Heatland "This is the 51st State of the US of A"

      2. katrinab Silver badge

        Re: Seems simple to me

        People do sometimes smash up ATM machines to try to get the money. I'm not sure they ever do actually get any money out of the machines, because physical security is pretty good. They get prosecuted for criminal damage in whichever UK country they did the raid in.

        The people who actually do successfully steal money out of an ATM tend to go up to the machine with a card, and withdraw money in the same way that we would withdraw money from our bank accounts. They do a lot of stuff on computers before cashing out to make the machine give them the money, and usually the person who withdraws the money from the machine isn't the person doing the stuff on the computers. They bought the card for a discount on the account balance.

      3. Mark 65

        Re: Seems simple to me

        Let's continue the analogy.

        If you burgle an ATM terminal of a Swiss bank in UK are you tried in UK or Switzerland?

        You're still fitting in with what the OP put in that the offence - the digital break and enter - took place where the server resides, anything else such as misuse of systems along the way is just extras. In your analogy the ATM is in the UK and thus so is the crime.

        A more interesting analogy might be you in the UK hacking the servers of Google/Facebook in a UK data centre that causes issues to propagate around the zones. Where then? UK? Each zone?

        What it really comes down to is that the US are effectively the colonial power of the day and they make the rules by and large. A century or more ago the UK was likely doing the same thing shitting on people although not for internet crimes.

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      Re: Seems simple to me

      Let's try another one... boiler rooms selling false financial products.

      There have been many set up in Spain and up until a couple of years ago police in the UK have hit a brick wall due to Spanish police saying they weren't interested because no crime took place in Spain. Eventually they changed their tune and it turns out that yes, the crime was actually committed in Spain - the boiler room was set up in Spain, the phones were in Spain, the people selling the false products were in an office in Spain, and the money went to somewhere under the boiler room's control, and the houses and cars belonging to the ringleaders were in Spain.

      The fact that the crime was committed in Spain seems fairly uncontroversial. Why should Laurie Love's case be any different?

      1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

        Re: spanish boiler rooms

        if people are being defrauded in the UK by people in spain , surely they should be tried in the UK , and the spanish police should hand them over with the extradition laws.

        I'm sure they would be "not interested" if ronny biggs robbed a train in the UK and fled to spain. no crime has been committed in spain but theyd still be obliged to hand him over surely

        1. Squander Two

          Re: spanish boiler rooms

          It's a false dichotomy: crimes have in fact been committed in both countries. Same as the Lauri Love case, then.

        2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: spanish boiler rooms

          "if people are being defrauded in the UK by people in spain , surely they should be tried in the UK , and the spanish police should hand them over with the extradition laws.

          I'm sure they would be "not interested" if ronny biggs robbed a train in the UK and fled to spain. no crime has been committed in spain but theyd still be obliged to hand him over surely"

          Thanks for showing up the difference in the two situations. Biggs committed a robbery in the UK and fled abroad. It's not only perfectly reasonable that he should be extradited to the UK for trial. That's where the action happened.

          If, on the other hand the action happened in Spain: telephonists, telephones, computers & whatnot then that's the place for the trial.

    3. veti Silver badge

      Re: Seems simple to me

      US law is actually pretty clear on this. If you're standing on Highway 35 in Kansas, and you shoot someone who's standing 100 yards down the road in Oklahoma, it's the state and people of Kansas that you'll be answering to. (Absent complicating factors, like either you or your target being an Oklahoma law enforcement officer.)

      The crime is committed where the criminal is, not where the "victim" is. This really isn't hard.

      1. Vic

        Re: Seems simple to me

        US law is actually pretty clear on this. If you're standing on Highway 35 in Kansas, and you shoot someone who's standing 100 yards down the road in Oklahoma, it's the state and people of Kansas that you'll be answering to

        And yet - if you're sitting in your room in the UK and you get a computer in the US to send you some data it shouldn't, the reverse applies...

        Vic.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Take (NOT) back control

    The issue is that it will be impossible to build cases for prosecutions because the USA judicial system will refuse to cooperate. It presently operates under the auspices of a doctrine which specifies that American law is extraterritorial, applies to anyone and everyone, no other law exists, international law does not exist and a USA court can issue a judgment to apply anywhere in the world.

    Insisting that we _REALLY_ take back control and prosecute locally means that there will be NO prosecutions at all at least for crimes committed in the USA, because for the USA law enforcement this means acknowledging that their extraterritoriality doctrine is a load of fermented bovine excrement which is long overdue to be taken out in the field and perused the way BS is used in real life - as manure. They will not provide the applicable information to build cases and continue to insist on extradition.

    In any case, any ideas that the local county council of Airstrip One will get any CONTROL are delusional. Like it or not, Eu directives were one of the last things in between us and a corporatocracy. They will be gone in two years and then the corporate rule will begin in earnest.

    1. Mystic Megabyte

      Re: Take (NOT) back control

      Well said, have an upvote.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Take (NOT) back control

      can we not dwell on this silly catchphrase of "taking back control"? This carries absolutely no meaning other than when a politician tries to gain some traction for the bullshit he / she's spewing in front of the camera.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Take (NOT) back control

        "This carries absolutely no meaning other than when a politician tries to gain some traction for the bullshit he / she's spewing in front of the camera."

        Whether it carries meaning or not is irrelevant. It has had an effect. I think that as the consequences of that effect become clear it's perfectly right that those who uttered it should be held up to ridicule. That might be a disproportionately meagre punishment but it's probably all we'll be able to administer.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Take (NOT) back control

      @AC, pretty much agree with all you have said apart from the last bit. The EU is already in corporate pockets thanks to plenty of lobbyists and the machinations of the Bilderberg Group.

      Juncker used to run one of Europe's most well known tax havens, Amazon how is your tax bill by the way, still zero ?

      Have an upvote, good piece on the whole.

    4. Howard Long

      Re: Take (NOT) back control

      "EU directives were on if the last things in between us and a corporatocracy"

      *cough* You do know about TTIP, right? *cough*

      1. heyrick Silver badge

        Re: Take (NOT) back control

        "You do know about TTIP, right?"

        What, you mean that stuff that various EU countries are demanding be rejected; while the post brexit government would probably sign up enthusiastically just to prove that "trade deals are better out of the EU" or some other carefully spun rubbish?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Take (NOT) back control

        *cough* You do know about TTIP, right? *cough*

        I do know about it. I also know that the sole reason it is not dead yet was pretty much because of one Eu country leader which we can emphatically call the DeadPigF*cker.

        As the DeadPigF*cker is no longer involved by the nature of his country voting to leave the Eu, it is as good as having an ash stake through it heart and buried 6 feet under ground.

        With the country previous lead by the DeadPigF*cker leaving the Eu and not having voice in the negotiations the executive summary on the TTIP is "not happening" - both France and Germany are against it.

        1. Robert D Bank

          Re: Take (NOT) back control

          I wouldn't be so sure. There's always going to be more attempts to introduce something similar

          http://www.monbiot.com/2016/09/07/here-they-come-again/

    5. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Take (NOT) back control

      "The issue is that it will be impossible to build cases for prosecutions because the USA judicial system will refuse to cooperate. It presently operates under the auspices of a doctrine which specifies that American law is extraterritorial, applies to anyone and everyone, no other law exists, international law does not exist and a USA court can issue a judgment to apply anywhere in the world."

      Well, if the rest of the world decides not to play that game the US has a clear choice: it can forgo the ability to have such crimes prosecuted or it can decide that maybe it's not everyone else that's out of step.

      1. Vic

        Re: Take (NOT) back control

        Well, if the rest of the world decides not to play that game the US has a clear choice: it can forgo the ability to have such crimes prosecuted or it can decide that maybe it's not everyone else that's out of step.

        You forgot Option 3: throw its weight around and force others to accept its view.

        Which do you think is the most likely?

        Vic.

  3. James 51

    Should be tried here as this is were they where when the crime was committed. The other countries should be able to have some input into the process but the US extradition system is simply abusive and I pity any poor mug who gets handed over.

    Pet peeve: I hate it when people use an accident of geography and cartography to pretend there is something exceptional about GB. The only way you could put the 'Great' back into GB is if there is a massive expansion of ice coverage on earth causing a land bridge to form between GB and mainland Europe and then you cause that ice to be melted submerging the land bridge.*

    *I've read in various places that the term Great comes from Roman writers who didn't have a firm grasp of geography or because of James VI/I holding the crowns of Scotland and England. Given that the lesser/greater naming convention applies world wide it's the explanation that I find the most logical but I don't have enough evidence to rule the others out. Either way, I rank putting the great in Great Britain as a slogan up there with politicians that say God loves our country/We are God fearing/God's will etc etc and therefore we have the right to do what ever we what to whom ever we want to do it to where ever we want to do it. It's a substitute for critical thinking and something used to lull a gullible and stupid electorate into a stupor.

    1. Squander Two

      > I've read in various places that the term Great comes from Roman writers who didn't have a firm grasp of geography or because of James VI/I holding the crowns of Scotland and England.

      Don't know where you read such things, but the "Great" in "Great Britain" originally referred to the fact that it is the largest of the British Isles. That is why Northern Ireland is in Britain but not in Great Britain.

      The phrase has of course come to have other connotations over the years, as "great" has come to mean "good" as well as "big". Pretty sure we don't have any politicians who are somehow under the impression that the largest of the British Isles has been overtaken in size by one of the Orkneys.

      1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

        are there any other countries that have chosen to put a bragging adjective before their name?

        I'm surprised North Korea hasnt. Or maybe thay have in korean

        Sunny spain?

        Fantastic France?

        triffic trinnidad?

        1. BillDarblay

          Err - the Greeks and Egyptians coined this term for the Larger Island in the British Isles. This is to differentiate between it and other islands like Ireland and also to differentiate between The UK and Great Britain. Most commonly people refer to the UK but Northern Ireland does have it's own devolved Government where some legislation is different to that of Great Britain.

          Or were you being ironic?

          Many people who live here put adjectives before the word Britain but they are often not what you would call "bragging". Most common are 'Sh1thole', 'RipOff' and 'Broken'.

        2. Allan George Dyer Silver badge

          Well, not before the name...

          @Prst. V.Jeltz - Try China: 中國, usually translated as "Middle Kingdom", implying "the centre of civilisation, everything else is barbarians". Or one that no longer exists: the Holy Roman Empire.

          Would you count putting "Democratic" in your name as boasting?

          1. Squander Two

            Re: Well, not before the name...

            > Would you count putting "Democratic" in your name as boasting?

            I'd almost always count it as lying. "The Democratic Republic of" is never either.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Everyone knows North Korea is best Korea.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Squander Two

        As the country is likely to go down the drain after many multinationals leave think it should be renamed 'Grate Britain'

      3. kyndair

        and little britain is nowadays called brittany

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "I've read in various places that the term Great comes from Roman writers who didn't have a firm grasp of geography or because of James VI/I holding the crowns of Scotland and England."

      Well done for quoting two incorrect explanations. It goes back to the outcome of the migrations of the dark ages. At the time the Angles, Saxons & Jutes were crossing the N Sea into Britain the Armorican peninsular had a rather low population so a number of Britons emigrated there. That was Little Britain in contrast to the original island which, in comparison was Great Britain. Today, of course, that Little Britain is called Brittany; note the similarity, it's not an accident.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    There are defined offences by a UK citizen travelling abroad - which the UK government prosecutes here even if they only took place in another country eg sex tourists or people going to fight in the Middle East conflicts for defined groups.

    So there appears to be an established precedent for prosecuting UK hackers here. More so in that they were physically here at the time - even though their targets were overseas.

    With cloud distribution of IT resources - the obvious singularity for a hacking offence appears to be where the person was when they committed it. Presumably if their current host country's law doesn't recognise the offence then they aren't going to agree to an extradition. eg Edward Snowden

    1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

      "the obvious singularity for a hacking offence appears to be where the person was when they committed it."

      it is the only definate non variable , no wait , what if its a bunch of people. say a bunch of 'anonymous' people?

      Id have said the more important singularity is where the victims are . assuming they are not "distributed" too

      1. 's water music

        "the obvious singularity for a hacking offence appears to be where the person was when they committed it."

        it is the only definate non variable , no wait , what if its a bunch of people. say a bunch of 'anonymous' people?

        Id have said the more important singularity is where the victims are . assuming they are not "distributed" too

        Given the difficulty of prosecuting a bunch of 'anonymous' people I'd say that that is an irrelevant edge case. I wouldn't argue that "location of hacker" will throw up some situations that feel wrong or silly but there are too many advantages to a codified legal system to move to one where you just do what feels right at the time.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If the crime was committed in the UK and that crime illegal in the UK regardless of the victim being UK resident or not then the crime should be prosecuted in a UK court. If it is not a criminal offence in UK in terms of law then there should be no case to answer.

    If I have returned to the UK from Saudi however the Saudis wish to extradite me for drinking alcohol then I should not be extradited as this isn't an offence under UK law.

    However if you are daft enough to hack the richest and largest military machine on the planet then you can expect a shitstorm of trouble, if you want to hack don't do it to the biggest bully in the playground.

    1. Andy The Hat Silver badge

      "If I have returned to the UK from Saudi however the Saudis wish to extradite me for drinking alcohol then I should not be extradited as this isn't an offence under UK law."

      If you were drinking alcohol in S.A. then they have a perfect right to ask for extradition as a criminal offence was committed on their territory.

      However, there's whole mess of the opposite - "you did XYZ in country Y and, though not illegal in Y, it's illegal in the UK so you're nicked mate". That is nasty.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      So, basically you're saying it would be okay if he'd hacked a lesser power that didn't have the power to do anything about it, but that we should pander to bullying because... well, don't ask me why, you're the one arguing we should kiss the US's backside and respect their laws purely because they're the biggest bully?

    3. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

      "If I have returned to the UK from Saudi however the Saudis wish to extradite me for drinking alcohol then I should not be extradited as this isn't an offence under UK law."

      seriously?

      I'm seeing a lot of people voting for trial in the uk - ive not spotted a sensible reason though.

      whats to stop all the criminal moving to a country where their preferred crime is legal , and running stuff from there? Didnt work for Howard Marks.

      If a Saudi comes over here, marries nice english girl , beats the shit out of her, then goes home is that ok? (cos it is in saudi)

      1. Squander Two
        Stop

        Missing the point.

        > If a Saudi comes over here, marries nice english girl , beats the shit out of her, then goes home is that ok?

        No, it's not, so we'd have an arrest warrant in place that could be enacted as soon as the perp re-entered the UK or a state with which we have an extradition treaty that covers that type of crime. This has nothing to do with whether the act is OK.

        The whole argument surrounding the Lauri Love case revolves around extradition, yet people keep bring up hypothetical examples involving countries with which we have no extradition treaty. These shed no light whatsoever on the case, because they are, by definition, shite examples.

      2. Cynic_999

        You have missed the point. What people are saying is that the person should be tried in the country in which the crime was committed, not the country where the person may reside when the crime is discovered.

        So in your scenario of "If a Saudi comes over here, marries nice english girl , beats the shit out of her, then goes home is that ok?" the answer is no, it is not OK, because the crime was committed in England. He should therefore be brought to the UK if possible and stand trial here.

        What you are saying is that if an Englishman goes to Amsterdam, smokes pot and returns to the UK, he should be able to be prosecuted for doing something that is not a crime in the place he did it.

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        "If a Saudi comes over here, marries nice english girl , beats the shit out of her, then goes home is that ok?"

        Your sequence suggests that the beating was committed in the UK. In that case the action took place here, it's an offence here, why would it not be prosecuted here?

        And to extend that same argument to the case in point, AIUI Laurie Love is allaged to have sat at a computer in the UK and performed acts which are an offence in the UK albeit the consequences were elsewhere. Why would that offence not be prosecuted here?

        1. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

          *Some* of you who who replied to my Saudi wife beating example seem to have missed the point i was making . could be my fault . let me make it clearer:

          I think because Laurie Love commited crimes in america (albeit from uk) , thats where he should stand trial.

          In reality that may be harsh, they may dish out a disproportionate punishment, but the principle seems right to me.

  6. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

    "In 1990, I can remember that Tam Dalyell MP sought confirmation that the offences in the Computer Misuse Bill (as it then was in 1990) could be tried in the UK."

    Tam Dalyell had a habit of asking questions which exposed woolly thinking - or perhaps complete lack of thinking - in the PTB.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Tam Dalyell had a habit of asking questions which exposed woolly thinking [...]"

      The 1977 "West Lothian question" is still a conundrum that keeps getting kicked into the long grass by Westminster governments of any party.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Never thought I'd see Tam mentioned

      I worked for him in the 90s, lovely man and incredibly intelligent. Completely wasted in the commons really but it's what he always wanted to do.

      I remember seeing him very angry one day after someone had written in about difficulty getting a disabled sticker for their car, only time I saw him annoyed. No idea who the poor bugger was that he called but he vented in the most exquisite way possible. The profanity was almost poetic.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Never thought I'd see Tam mentioned

        "Completely wasted in the commons really but it's what he always wanted to do."

        He did get out and about a bit more than that. He was a long-time columnist in the New Scientist.

    3. WeeGordy
      Big Brother

      Tam Dalyell

      A complete and utter hero in my not so humble opinion. Yer man exposed hypocrysy, double-dealing and downight lying on many subjects. I disagreed with him strongly on several things but you could never doubt his integrity. His likes are sorely missed these days, along with the likes of Norman St.John Stevas, Tony Benn and Enoch Powell. I hated them all, but boy, were they prepared to ask the difficult questions, unlike today's lot. Jesus, Trump may become POTUS.

  7. Andy The Hat Silver badge

    How?

    As a fly in the ointment, how could it be tried here? The USA would not allow detailed security information of 'the hack' of US government organisations to be submitted to another Country's populous and the case would fall for lack of evidence.

    The excuse 'I have asberger's/autism' seems to be a legal whitewash brush to attempt to weedle out of such cases in the UK. Indeed one 'client' was diagnosed from the tv coverage of his arrest! At what point does illness negate the rule of law? Is the view of such mental illness as strong in the USA? Is that a valid reason NOT to extradite?

    1. BoldMan

      Re: How?

      At what point does the USA refusing to cooperate with UK law enforcement means that a case is unenforceable and the perp goes free? If the US authorities refuse to cooperate that is their problem, not ours. We shouldn't be handing over our citizens to a barbarous legal system that has lost the ability to dispense justice.

      1. P. Lee

        Re: How?

        >We shouldn't be handing over our citizens to a barbarous legal system that has lost the ability to dispense justice.

        Which the existence of the plea-bargain system alone, proves. Either the punishment is fit for the crime or it isn't.

        It's almost as bad as the "we're going to double the punishment for not wearing a seatbelt because its a public holiday" ploy we have in Oz. What? Is the punishment appropriate or is it not?

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
        Megaphone

        Re: How?

        "and the perp goes free?"

        Perp? The word is "accused". "Perp" or in full, perpetrator, is reserved for the time after a trial if guilt is proven. Thus lazy use of "perp" is playing into the hands of those who would prefer a "guilty unless proven innocent" revenge justice system.

      3. Bluenose

        Re: How?

        In what way is the US system barbarous? There is no threat of a death penalty in this instant and their legal system is no less bad than our own. Their prison system on the other hand is certainly barbarous but that is a different matter and if he is going to plea bargain perhaps he should ask to serve his sentence in the UK. Perhaps at Belmarsh where, if the rumours are true, he will be quickly radicalised and turned in to a jihadist.

    2. James 51

      Re: How?

      If the US doesn't want to hand the info over we shouldn't just take them at their word that something bad has happened. Once you fall into the whole 'the evidence is too secret to show' hole you find that it's a lot deeper and can fit a lot more people than you thought possible.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: How?

        "If the US doesn't want to hand the info over we shouldn't just take them at their word that something bad has happened"

        IIRC this particular extradition agreement is supposed to be mutual - but the provisions are lopsided. The USA doesn't have to show any solid evidence for wanting an extradition - whereas the UK has to quote chapter and verse (and the US generally refuses to extradite one of their citizens to the UK anyway).

        1. Richard 26

          Re: How?

          "The USA doesn't have to show any solid evidence for wanting an extradition - whereas the UK has to quote chapter and verse (and the US generally refuses to extradite one of their citizens to the UK anyway)."

          The first part is debatable: some people believe the treaty is lopsided but an official review said otherwise. The second part is complete nonsense: the US has never refused an extradition to the UK under the Act.

    3. Dr. Mouse

      Re: How?

      As a fly in the ointment, how could it be tried here? The USA would not allow detailed security information of 'the hack' of US government organisations to be submitted to another Country's populous and the case would fall for lack of evidence.

      Aaaawww, diddums, da poor ickle USA doesn't want us to know dey suck at security?

      Seriously, it was a "crime" here, and should be prosecuted here. If they choose to offer no evidence at trial, he is declared not guilty, case closed. If they want him "punished" for his "crime", give us enough evidence and he will be convicted.

      We are a sovereign nation*, and our laws apply on our soil. We have not** become Airstrip One.

      * Yes, we are, in spite of what Brexiteers tell us. We allowed some decisions to be made by a club we were a member of, but Parliament is still sovereign and always had been. If it wasn't, then Brexit wouldn't even be an option without the express consent of the EU.

      ** We haven't quite yet become a part of the USA, although it may feel like it at times.

      1. Squander Two

        Re: How?

        > Parliament is still sovereign and always had been. If it wasn't, then Brexit wouldn't even be an option without the express consent of the EU.

        And indeed Brexit wasn't an option without the express consent of the EU, as the EU only created the sainted Article 50 quite recently -- until they did, there was no mechanism for leaving.

        I dare say we could have left anyway. But it would have been even more fraught and complicated, and would have had to involve the emergency creation of something like Article 50 -- i.e., the express consent of the EU.

        1. David Haworth 1

          Re: How?

          Quoth Squander Two:

          "And indeed Brexit wasn't an option without the express consent of the EU, as the EU only created the sainted Article 50 quite recently -- until they did, there was no mechanism for leaving."

          IIRC Art. 50 was added to the Lisbon Treaty to appease the UK. Without the article there was no agreed mechanism for leaving. But that doesn't say that leaving the EU wasn't possible. In fact, it would probably have been less messy, avoiding the need for two years of blah that won't start until the intent to leave has been formally declared using some unspecified "constitutional" method.

          Without Art. 50 you'd just have to repeal the domestic legislation that ratifies the treaty. Then it's "so long and thanks for all the fish." That means in its simplest form a "hard brexit". Art. 50 also allows the remainder of the EU to stonewall until the official invocation. Without it, negotiations could take place under an informal non-binding declaration of intent to leave.

          1. Squander Two

            Re: How?

            You're saying that all those other Brexits, the ones that never happened, totally could have. OK. The fact is, the only ever real-world case of a state leaving the EU has started only after the EU created what is in effect its express permission.

            The idea that a member state can leave even when there's no mechanism for doing so has a certain amount of evidence against it. The Greeks really, desperately, need to go back to having their own currency. There is no mechanism for leaving the Euro. You could argue that Greece is still sovereign and so could leave the Euro if it wanted. Your argument might well be theoretically true, yet would not match up too well with the facts. Merkel even went so far as to explain that a state leaving the Euro would lead to all-out pan-European war. There's sovereign, and then there's sovereign.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: How?

              "You could argue that Greece is still sovereign and so could leave the Euro if it wanted."

              It's perfectly true. Sure, they'd face financial ruin, but from a legal point of view they really could. Brexit is the same - we can leave any time we like - the power is ours alone (not the EUs) - but if/when we choose to do so we will have to accept whatever financial consequences go with it.

              Article 50 is either a way for the rest of the EU to stonewall before official negotiations can start, or it's a mechanism which allows structured negotiations to take place to soften the fallout (to both sides) as a result of the departure. In reality it's both - you just choose to spin it whichever way your political views dictate it should be.

              1. Squander Two

                Re: How?

                > Sure, they'd face financial ruin

                Ah, yes, if the Greeks were to leave the Euro, then they'd face financial ruin. Wouldn't want that to happen.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: How?

                  "Ah, yes, if the Greeks were to leave the Euro, then they'd face financial ruin. Wouldn't want that to happen."

                  I see what you're getting at - and fair point, they are pretty comprehensively stuffed. However, you could see them remaining where they are as their economy being on life support (of the "machines breathing for you, food through a tube" sort), and leaving the Euro would be the equivalent of pulling the plug. There are different degrees of financial ruin...

            2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

              Re: How?

              "The Greeks really, desperately, need to go back to having their own currency. There is no mechanism for leaving the Euro."

              The fact that there's no mechanism agreed doesn't mean that they could make up their own. It's just that the implementation* would be so messy that staying there is actually the easier option.

              *It's a case of "if I wanted to go there I wouldn't start from here".

        2. Dr. Mouse

          Re: How?

          And indeed Brexit wasn't an option without the express consent of the EU

          Rubbish.

          Article 50 spells out an agreed mechanism for leaving. Before this, states could still leave, there was just no established procedure as to how.

          Our membership of the EU is established by an act of parliament (and agreed treaties). Parliament could have rescinded that act at any point, and abandoned the treaties. There may have been consequences, but parliament always had that option.

        3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: How?

          "And indeed Brexit wasn't an option without the express consent of the EU, as the EU only created the sainted Article 50 quite recently -- until they did, there was no mechanism for leaving."

          Although I disagree with what's happening in regard to Brexit this bit doesn't make sense. There may have been no mechanism for leaving in terms of a defined procedure. There was certainly no mechanism to keep a country in the EU if it was determined to leave.

      2. WeeGordy

        Re: How?

        Have an upvote, Dr. Mouse. To slightly mangle Robert A Heinlein..."Sovreignty....is just a word between 'Sober' and 'Sozzled' in the dictionary".

    4. Captain Hogwash
      Headmaster

      Re: How?

      Populace!

    5. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: How?

      "As a fly in the ointment, how could it be tried here? The USA would not allow detailed security information of 'the hack' of US government organisations to be submitted to another Country's populous and the case would fall for lack of evidence."

      Their choice. They should be told to take it or leave it.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A serious offence committed in the UK is subject to trial before a jury of the defendant's UK "peers".

    That is a long-established system which allows the interpretation of a law in accordance with society's changing mores.

    If the alleged offence in not illegal in the UK then a UK citizen should not be extradited to another country in which it is an offence,

    If the alleged offence in illegal in the UK then it should be tried and sentenced according to the UK mores.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Should be tried here.

    So long as *actual* damages can be proven.

    I also think the "unauthorised access" section needs to be clarified. There needs to be explicit definitions outlining what authorised means in this context. For example accessing a public website is deemed as being authorised without any explicit authorisation ever being given. So technically your access is unauthorised. If someone has a web facing publically accessible router status page or similar with no authentication the same should apply...whether or not the owner of the device intended for this to occur. The law is there to protect people from danger not make up for incompetence.

    If something is internet facing and is publically accessible via no authentication or default credentials a slap on the wrist should be issued to the "hacker" at the most and a gigantic "stop wasting court time you should have locked down the device" fine should be levyed on the "victim". If the victim couldn't possibly lock down a device due to a limitation / bug in the device the vendor should be taken to court by the "victim".

    Also Web crawlers break this section of the law everyday.

    Put into perspective. If I caught a bunch of kids/knobheads mucking about in my front yard and they caused no damage and didn't intend any harm and they moved on when spotted I wouldnt reasonably expect then to serve time. Hell, I probably wouldn't even call the police unless they persistently came back or were sinister/threatening in some way.

    1. Dr. Mouse

      Re: Should be tried here.

      However, we do need to be sensible with this.

      If the website has cocked up, and left a load of customer details accessible without authentication, we cannot reasonably expect that downloading them is authorised. Just as, if I left my front door unlocked, I have not given a burglar authorisation to go in and take all my stuff.

      1. Squander Two

        Re: Should be tried here.

        > Just as, if I left my front door unlocked, I have not given a burglar authorisation to go in and take all my stuff.

        Exactly. If you don't secure your house properly, then your insurance company may not have to pay up, since you've probably breached your contract with them. But anyone who goes in and nicks stuff is every bit as much a criminal as they would be if it were locked.

        Are we going to stop prosecuting pickpockets if they only take things from unsecured pockets?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Should be tried here.

          what about "authorising" the BBC to access your computer-controlled TV to see if you're watching without a license? Who decides what is authorised, or not, and when do non-elected or non-representative bodies get to decide their wishes override the explicit position of the owner of the system in question?

      2. Vic

        Re: Should be tried here.

        If the website has cocked up, and left a load of customer details accessible without authentication, we cannot reasonably expect that downloading them is authorised. Just as, if I left my front door unlocked, I have not given a burglar authorisation to go in and take all my stuff.

        There is one distinct difference between the two sides of your analogy: the latter involves actually going in and taking stuff, whereas the former involves asking an agent of the owner for that stuff, and being given it.

        The analogy I use is of a rather dim butler. If he answers the door, an I ask him "may I have all your valuables, please?" and he gives them to me, have I actually committed an offence[1]? I'm not fraudulently claiming to be entitled to any of those valuables. I'm not pointing a gun at him to enforce compliance. I'm just asking him to do something in the same way that everyone else asks him to do things.

        So it is with gathering data from a poorly-secured website; if all I do is to ask the site's agent (the HTTP server) for a resource that is permitted, but the owner would probably rather wasn't, how is that an offence of my commission?

        Vic.

        [1] I can't be arsed to trawl the Theft Act for an absolute resolution of that question; I suspect a desperate prosecution might go for a "conspiracy to steal" charge, but I can't see that sticking if it were clear there were no significant previous dealings between me and the butler.

    2. Squander Two

      Authorisation/permission.

      > For example accessing a public website is deemed as being authorised without any explicit authorisation ever being given. So technically your access is unauthorised.

      I'd've thought setting the permissions to 644 constituted granting authorisation to the public to view it.

    3. Commswonk

      Re: Should be tried here.

      While in broad terms I support the argument that any trial should be held here there is a glaring precedent where the UK went out of its way to have a foreign suspect extradited to the UK for trial here - specifically the trial (held in Scotland under Scottish Law) for the person or persons suspected of placing a bomb on Pan Am 103.

      Although it seems that the bomb was placed on the aircarft at Heathrow, it had started its journey (I think) in Malta and had also passed through Frankfurt.

      Yes - it exploded over Scotland, but the chain of events leading to that explosion started elsewhere; Libya if the outcome of the trial was correct. (I include that because there still seems to be some residual doubt.)

      The accused were never suspected of putting the bomb on Pan Am 103 at Heathrow in person; I think we have to assume that the "final pair of hands" through which the bomb passed had no idea whatsoever of what he or she had handled.

      And yet the person(s) accused were eventually brought to the UK for trial, even if they themselves did nothing on UK soil to bring about the destrcution of the aircraft and the deaths of all the passengers, crew, and several on the ground in Lockerbie.

      In this case if in no other the UK government won the argument that the trial should take place in the UK, so there is an inconsistency in arguing that someone (e.g. Lauri Love) should not be tried in the US.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Should be tried here.

        "Although it seems that the bomb was placed on the aircarft at Heathrow"

        So you're saying the trial should have been held at the Old Bailey under English law.

  10. Pen-y-gors

    A historian writes...

    Actually, the 'Great' in Great Britain has little to do with the ability of the country to nuke its neighbours, decide for itself on the acceptable shape of bananas or send gunboats to threaten fuzzy-wuzzies in distant lands. Fundamentally it's simply a geographic term to clarify which Britain is being referred to. In Irish, An Bhreatain Bheag (little Britain) is actually Wales. (Although I have a nasty feeling that in Scots Gaelic a’ Bhreatainn Bheag; is actually Brittany) In Breton, Bretagne is Brittany, So Great Britain is simply a term for the largest island of the British Isles.

    In political terms the name of the Kingdom of Great Britain was used when Scotland joined with England and Wales in 1707, meaning that the whole island of Great Britain was then one kingdom. {Obviously this will change after indyref2 </troll>}

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A historian writes...

      The term "Britain" on its own, despite being generally used as a synonym for the United Kingdom, doesn't- strictly speaking- have any officially-defined meaning on its own, does it?

      And yes, I too had noted that if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom, the remainder wouldn't have any legitimate reason to call itself "Great" Britain in any sense. :-)

      1. Ahab Returns

        Re: A historian writes...

        As I understand it, and I date from when the map of the world was one quarter pink so I may be wrong or senile or both, take your pick, Britain is the Roman name for what we call England and Wales, so yes, Britain does exist.

        Great Britain would indeed cease to exist if if Scotland left the union (England, Wales and Scotland), but the United Kingdom would remain, minus the "Scotland" bit, as The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

        Scotland would remain part of the British Isles, as indeed is Eire.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: A historian writes...

          "[...] but the United Kingdom would remain, minus the "Scotland" bit,"

          IIRC The "kingdoms" that united were only England and Scotland. So if Scotland goes it leaves only the kingdom of England - plus Wales and Northern Ireland. Wales is presumably a "principality" linked to the English crown. Not sure what Northern Ireland is classed as - although it has obviously a different legal status than the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, or Gibraltar.

      2. Pedigree-Pete

        Re: A historian writes...

        Can't claim credit for this as some other wag posted this last week but it is amusing.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10

        PP

      3. kyndair

        Re: A historian writes...

        Although back at the height of empire Britain could mean anything from the large island to a large chunk of the world depending on context, sometimes it sounds like certain politicos and their rabid supporters want to make option 2 viable again

      4. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: A historian writes...

        'The term "Britain" on its own, despite being generally used as a synonym for the United Kingdom, doesn't- strictly speaking- have any officially-defined meaning on its own, does it?'

        When used as a synonym it isn't actually correct. The full expression is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". So Great Britain, the whole island, is a component of the UK, not the whole.

        1. Squander Two

          Re: A historian writes...

          > So Great Britain, the whole island, is a component of the UK, not the whole.

          Great Britain, yes; "Britain", though, without the "Great", is generally used to refer to the country. The Northern Irish are actually quite strict about this, referring to the country of which they are a part as "Britain", not "Great Britain". (Whether they say it proudly or bitterly is another matter.)

          This does lead to a rather nice irony, that Britain is larger than Great Britain. English, eh?

    2. WeeGordy

      Re: A historian writes...

      Just excellent. Have an upvote.

  11. Pen-y-gors

    Should Computer Misuse Act offences committed in UK be prosecuted in UK?

    Yes

    ...and could we now have the next bleedin' obvious question please?

    1. 's water music
      Joke

      Re: Should Computer Misuse Act offences committed in UK be prosecuted in UK?

      Yes

      ...and could we now have the next bleedin' obvious question please?

      Have you ever heard of Betteridges Law?

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Have you ever heard of Betteridges Law?

        No.

        Paging Herr Gödel.

  12. Cereberus

    Stand up and be counted by being sensible

    Just keep it simple. The offense was allegedly committed in the UK by someone in the UK. Any criminal proceedings should be delay with in the UK. We should co-operate with other governments of course as part of international relations so we agree an offense may have been committed by a person here.

    Please Mr USA, if you believe an offense has been committed against you send us the evidence, we will review it along with any other submissions and then make an informed decision on whether there is a case to answer. Oh, you don't want to send us the information because of <state reason>? In that case, as we can't find sufficient evidence to build a case to prosecute there is no case to answer so we will not take it any further. Sorry, you want us to send the person to you so you can prosecute them for an offense committed in our country. OK we can do that after you have sent (using comments on this thread) all the US citizens who drink alcohol to Saudi Arabia for trial as they have breached their laws.

    I misunderstood I think - alcohol drinkers haven't committed an offense? Well they have under Saudi law. Just because they haven't been in Saudi when the offense was committed doesn't make them any less guilty does it? Surely you wouldn't want to use double standards here. Oh, and by the way can you send all your gun carriers who don't have a justifiable holders permit under UK law here so we can prosecute them. Don't worry, we won't use any underhand tactics like plea bargaining, we won't even send them to jail if found guilty - we'll just fine them and send them back to you - or Saudi if you prefer.

    In short the alleged crime is committed here, regardless of who it is against, the person should be prosecuted here. If you won't provide the evidence to back up your claim, go away and stop whining - you do not decide our laws, or when you can supersede them because you feel like it Mr USA. You make think you are the world's police but you still have to follow the rule - innocent until proven guilty - in line with the law of the country where the offense was committed, not where it impacted. we won't discuss how secure your systems were, but don't complain if they are not secure and someone gets access.

  13. Prst. V.Jeltz Silver badge

    "there is an uncomfortable suspicion that public officials in the UK are agreeing to the extradition of Mr Love in order to invoke its plea bargaining procedure and avoid any embarrassing exposure of an inadequate level of security procedures adopted by US public bodies"

    what? so if he was prosecuted in th UK , we would be obliged to look at a US websites security and attempt to fine them? or am i reading that wrong?

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "so if he was prosecuted in th UK , we would be obliged to look at a US websites security and attempt to fine them?"

      It's the logical equivalent of what the US is claiming. So maybe if he's to be tried in the US we should do that very thing.

  14. Mike Richards

    'So if the US had enacted a European Data Protection law, the hacked organisations could have been vulnerable to enforcement action if their website security was at a level that left personal data vulnerable to hacking attacks. That does not negate the fact that Mr Love committed a hacking offence, but clearly if website security was weak, then this allowed Mr Love’s attacks to succeed.'

    That has nothing to do with the case. By analogy if I leave my door open and you pop in and steal something, you are still guilty of theft. I was dumb in leaving the door open, but you still chose to thieve.

  15. This post has been deleted by its author

  16. tr1ck5t3r

    Some of the best hackers work for the largest US tech firms just like the "best" banksters work for Goldman Sachs, its a psychological empowerment mind trick. Do you think its not a valid strategy for the US to be setting up foreign targets who show sparks of genius, knowing that its easy to claim the US tech firms & other entities were hacked themselves? After all, who do you believe the big guy or the little guy? Its the same strategy that works for corrupt police when investigating crimes if you want something a little more local.

    As someone who had a distinguished professor from MIT who also sat on the board of a US VC company, insist without sounding desperate, I meet them at Cambridge Uni on what I call with hindsight, a phishing exercise, I thought his advice was odd to say the least at the time, especially as history now shows his advice to me was contradictory to what has transpired in the US with Google, Facebook and other tech firms. So whilst spooks break the laws, do you not think from a military perspective that using tech companies would further the US military advantage even though its disguised as a business? BAE systems is a classic example of a company essentially working for some countries military's. Law only needs evidence and in todays world photoshop works-of-art are not the only thing faked in the digital world. How easy is it to fake logs? So dont be so gullible and swallow the line Lauri Love hacked the US, the US could have hacked him psychologically by building him and other wannabe hackers up just like survivors of whatever traumatic event are built back up, but with Lauri Love, he is also likely to be a suggestible character so other hackers will almost likely have coerced/suggested actions which may or may not have led to him doing things or maybe his own hacked equipment acted as part of a botnet. I've seen so much of this go on, you really cant trust noone, not even your own Govt when it operates in secret!

    Catching the spooks since the early 90's on dialup tracing lonely packets back to the BT UK Core at Bletchley. Related to the highest risk Cat A prisoner in the UK who used to supply equipment to GCHQ and has had documentaries made about his prison escape. (Is the last paragraph enough words to have a Milgram like obedience to authority over your thoughts)?

  17. scrubber
    Joke

    Big Banks

    So when HSBC are complicit in money laundering for Mexican drug cartels and groups on the terrorist list then where do the officials get tried?

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/11/hsbc-us-money-laundering-george-osborne-report

  18. Tom Paine

    "Taking back control"

    I'm looking forward to hearing about how we're going to tear up the other ten thousand plus treaties that control and constrain the actions of the UK government. We may be free of the EU, but what about the ICHR, the UN, the World Bank, the IMF, IATA, the G7 / G10/ G20,... hell, what about ISO? IATA? ITU? The list goes on an on. Why should /their/ faceless bureaucrats be listened to when we apparently don't want anything to do with their colleagues in Brussels?

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Autism.

    Have to say, I get a bit pissed off with the constant media attention given to Love's autism. Some people have such severe mental illness that they have to be kept under strict supervision, occasionally even locked up, for their own good. (My late aunt was one of them.) Others (most) have mild enough mental illness that they can be allowed to go out and live with everyone else and look after themselves -- and be held responsible for their actions. There's a trade-off: either you're not criminally responsible, in which case you're not responsible for other things, either, such as living by yourself, having control of your own finances, getting a job, getting married, having kids; or you're competent enough to be deemed responsible for such things, in which case you're criminally responsible too. Either you understand the consequences of your actions or you don't.

    My daughter has Asperger's. It brings difficulties, but she knows the difference between right and wrong. May not like it, but she knows it. And she's five.

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Autism.

      Absolutely. The article makes no sense in terms of stating "on the autistic spectrum" with no indication of what scale is in use and where on said scale the person is. It's such a woolly definition that we are probably all "on the autistic spectrum", just that most of us are at the end were it's not even noticeable in real life. It's ;lazy journalism across all of the media to keep using this phrase.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Autism.

      She likely bases her judgements on right and wrong on a more enlightened sense of morality than the law allows.

      In her, and an autistic persons mind, having a look inside a computer system that has an open front door, causing no damage, with no criminal intent, is likely 'not wrong' regardless of what the law says.

      Teaching a kid 'this is wrong because the law says so' is a SUCKY way to instill morality.

      1. Squander Two

        Re: Autism.

        > Teaching a kid 'this is wrong because the law says so' is a SUCKY way to instill morality.

        Sure. But teaching a kid "this is illegal because the law says so" is quite easy. And, since autism usually involves literal-mindedness, even easier for autistic kids.

        1. kyndair

          Re: Autism.

          but not even the best lawyers and judges know all the laws even in one country let alone all countries covered by reciprocal extradition treaties. This is one of the problems facing the modern world that politicians avoid talking about and then make worse with more and more badly (and broadly) worded laws.

      2. Cynic_999

        Re: Autism.

        "Teaching a kid 'this is wrong because the law says so' is a SUCKY way to instill morality."

        Who says that morality has anything to do with it? Teaching a kid that it is wrong to cross the road without looking has nothing to do with morality, it is to do with keeping the child safe. Exactly the same is the case when teaching a child something is wrong because it is against the law.

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Autism.

        "Teaching a kid 'this is wrong because the law says so' is a SUCKY way to instill morality."

        Maybe, but it is to the long term advantage of the kid.

    3. tr1ck5t3r

      Re: Autism.

      "My daughter has Asperger's. It brings difficulties, but she knows the difference between right and wrong. May not like it, but she knows it. And she's five."

      Only when you stop and ask her focusing her mind on the question does she give you the answer you expect, at other times, you dont know if she is thinking about the difference, with so many thoughts going on and a limited resource ie a brain, can you really say, does she know the difference between right and wrong if she is caught up in the moment of whatever is going on which is dominating most of her attention? You are not a mind reader, you cant tell what is going on in the mind otherwise you wouldnt be posting on here.

      This is the problem with law, if you are so heavily focused on something, can you really claim she knows the difference between right and wrong if she is not even thinking about it? We are not operating systems with software acting on Windows event messages. This is why I say laws are a form of mental harassment for creative minds. The law needs to show malicious intent and thats probably as hard as proving Schroedinger cat.

      Put another way, if you have a car accident and its your fault and you claim you didnt see the vehicle you hit, should you be punished in the same way to the same extent of the law as the US CMA equivalent wants to punish Lauri Love?

      You didnt invent the laws, you dont have a say in the laws as you took the lazy option and wanted to be represented in a so called democracy.

      Clever people take from the strong and the strong take from the weak. Think about it...

  20. lukewarmdog

    "Lauri Love is a 31-year-old hacker on the autistic spectrum; he is accused of doing some totally stupid/misguided things and has allegedly hacked into all sorts of places that should not have been hacked"

    In that last sentence it should say

    "should not have been hackable"

    I mean seriously, you've got a guy with a stupid name, an even stupider sounding disease and he hacked your very expensive websites which apparently employs the geniusest of geniuses.

    I'd be setting my own house in order, quietly, not very publicly announcing how crap at security I am.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Let loose the dogs of warmth!

      "I mean seriously, you've got a guy with a stupid name"

      I mean seriously, you're trying to tell us that (what in your important opinion is) a "stupid" name that he was given at birth is likely to have any bearing upon the matter?

      On the other hand, if someone *chose* a genuinely stupid name for themselves, that might be a sign that they're not meant to be taken seriously.

      If your family name is actually "Warmdog" then I guess you can't be blamed for your mother not thinking through the implications of calling you "Luke", but otherwise I think this speaks for itself. :-)

  21. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
    FAIL

    He committed a serious offence in the USA

    That is, making Federal security organisations look like fools.

    There is no defence, or mitigation possible, as any attempt to do so compounds the offence.

    As Chelsea Manning is finding out.

  22. Stratman

    If another country is volunteering to cough up the £50k a year it costs to feed and water a crim, I say "Thanks very much, would you like some more?"

  23. localzuk Silver badge

    Jurisdiction

    My question is one of jurisdiction. If the hacker was not in the USA, or on US soil, how does a US law apply to them?

    The UK law is the one that was broken.

    1. Squander Two

      Re: Jurisdiction

      That's rather the point of extradition treaties.

      1. Dr. Mouse

        Re: Jurisdiction

        That's rather the point of extradition treaties.

        Nope.

        Extradition treaties are there for when you HAVE broken a foreign law WHILE WITHIN that law's jurisdiction.

        If I went to the US, killed someone, then fled back to the UK, I would rightly expect to be extradited. I committed a crime in the US, then left their jurisdiction in an attempt to avoid the law.

        If I commit a crime in the UK and stay in the UK, however, I would expect to be dealt with by the UK, not the US. They seem to believe that they have jurisdiction over the whole world, and should be allowed to take them to the US for trial no matter where the crime was committed. Team America: World Police.

        (And now I've got the theme tune stuck in my head...)

        1. Squander Two

          Re: Jurisdiction

          Actually, extradition treaties, as is the case with all treaties between states, are there for whatever those states decide they're there for. International law is like contract law: you can put anything you like in the contract.

          Thought experiment: a sniper in Canada fires across the border, killing someone in the US. Where was the murder committed? Would the US be insane to claim jurisdiction or to request extradition? Seems reasonable to me. (Which isn't to say that the Canadians would be unreasonable to claim jurisdiction.)

          Transnational computer crime seems similar to me. Ready access to the Internet obviously makes the whole concept of physical location a bit more complicated than when you're considering, say, a case of shoplifting. You really can commit a crime in one country while sitting in another country. We can argue about how best the law should address this problem and whether it's addressing it correctly, but it seems strange to me to argue that the law simply should not address the problem at all.

          We've been here before. In the early 20th Century, some American robbers pioneered the use of cars to commit a crime in one state and drive across the border and out of that state's jurisdiction. The law was updated to address the problem raised by the new technology -- as it clearly needed to be.

          1. Dr. Mouse

            Re: Jurisdiction

            Thought experiment: a sniper in Canada fires across the border, killing someone in the US.

            It is an interesting one, and one I have considered.

            Where it is a crime in both places, I would argue that it should be prosecuted where the crime is instigated (i.e. in Canada). I would expect international relations to be involved, and a great deal of cooperation between the two countries to bring the perpetrator to justice, but the shooter was on Canadian soil, and should be able to expect to be under their jurisdiction.

            If we continue the thought experiment and consider a situation whereby the murder was not illegal in Canada for some reason (e.g. a quirk in the law which meant they couldn't prosecute because noone died in Canada), I would expect the US to initiate extradition proceedings.

            This applies well to this case: As the crime was committed on UK soil, and is a crime here, the UK authorities should be prosecuting. The US should accept our jurisdiction and cooperate in the investigation. I believe these cases are a failure of our own police and CPS.

            I accept that others may have different interpretations, but that is mine. I also accept that extradition treaties are whatever they are written as, but that's a whole other kettle of fish which I won't delve into at this time.

            1. Squander Two

              Re: Jurisdiction

              > I accept that others may have different interpretations

              Well, that was my point. I don't think there is a single answer to the question. I think various answers are all perfectly reasonable. A lot of the commenters are making simple black-and-white statements of "this part happened in the UK therefore obviously extradition should not happen". I say it's not obvious and the "therefore" is more of a "so maybe".

            2. tr1ck5t3r

              Re: Jurisdiction

              "Where it is a crime in both places" Have you just proven the existence of a legal Schrodinger's cat?

          2. tr1ck5t3r

            Re: Jurisdiction - Thought experiment:

            The dead person might have got in the way. Wrong time and place but thats history, they are dead.

            On the point of robbers using cars, and law being updated, why cant we update the law to prosecute americans for the psychological trauma of knowing about their culture or is that not serious enough for some?

            Besides if we live in a democracy why should I be governed by laws from a bygone era? I certainly would not have agreed to the 1947 USUK agreement to share military intelligence.

            According to UK Law Carr v Carr 1811, once money is deposited in a bank it becomes the property of the bank not the depositor. On this precedent we should not have bailed out the banks using Quantative Easing or any other method, plus the depositors and shareholders of said failed banks should have had a hair cut.

            As I've said before the public are just pawns in a global psychopathic game of control. If law is any good then theres no need for the moral high ground. However as the moral high ground still exists it shows the law is not fit for purpose so I say lets scrap the law and start again.

          3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: Jurisdiction

            "Which isn't to say that the Canadians would be unreasonable to claim jurisdiction."

            Quite. If the action were an offence in only one country then there's scope for debate. If it's an offence in both then your posited reasonableness of the Canadian claim should tell you all you need to know. The gunman was in Canada, the gun was in Canada, the trigger was pulled in Canada, the action was contrary to Canadian law. No need to complicate matters.

            "In the early 20th Century, some American robbers pioneered the use of cars to commit a crime in one state and drive across the border and out of that state's jurisdiction."

            Your point is? The crime is committed in one state and the criminals flee to another. That, at least in the international sense, is what one expects an extradition to deal with. I've no idea what the US solution was to such interstate crime. The obvious one is to set up a mechanism whereby the suspects can be sent back into the original jurisdiction for trial. If they didn't do that I can see why their approach to extending their law over the entire planet comes from but it still doesn't make it a good idea.

        2. streaky

          Re: Jurisdiction

          If I commit a crime in the UK and stay in the UK, however, I would expect to be dealt with by the UK, not the US

          You assertion revolves around the location of the victim. If it's a US victim they have a right to at least ask and if you refuse they have a right to decide if the extradition treaties benefit both sides; and therein lies the problem of why it's a more complicated issue. If you murder a US national in the UK and the UK says "not my problem" the US probably isn't going to really have a choice. Hell we go much further than that all the time with cooperation - look at British police digging holes in Greece right now..

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Jurisdiction

            What if the offence you committed in another country - is definitely not classed as an offence in your own country? Then your own country would presumably refuse an extradition request.

            For example a couple could be considered married in their own country - but not in a country they visited. The foreign country could prosecute them - but there is no way their own country would grant extradition.

            There is a debate in some European countries at the moment about the status of refugee couples where the wife is under the local age of consent. That could also apply to couples visiting many countries - given the range of local legal age thresholds.

        3. Commswonk

          Re: Jurisdiction

          If I commit a crime in the UK and stay in the UK, however, I would expect to be dealt with by the UK, not the US. They seem to believe that they have jurisdiction over the whole world, and should be allowed to take them to the US for trial no matter where the crime was committed. Team America: World Police.

          Quite so. However, I have a vague recollection that there have been occasions where US Service personnel based at one of the notionally RAF sites have committed offences on UK soil, and are immediately spirited off back to the US where they remain firmly beyond the reach of the UK legal system. I'm not sure if this is enshrined in the Visiting Forces Act or not but it has the effect of subordinating UK legal interests to the whim of US authorities.

          Perhaps this is the hallmark of the "special relationship"; one of the parties (the UK) gets permanently shafted by the other. (The US)

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. tr1ck5t3r

            Re: Jurisdiction

            I know exactly what you mean, so when I'm flying my squadron of Canadian Geese in front of the runway next time and those jets fly into them, whose fault is it? Whilst the public footpath through RAF Lakenheath is now closed to the public, theres no law to stop me flying my Red Robin around either.

            Bird strikes are a multi million pound disaster waiting to happen.

            What next banning birds near airports or even a dangerous birds act? Innovation comes in many guises, but if you dont want to be spied on by the US stop using US Tech, its as simple as that. Your business secrets are worth more than you think. Just like popup adverts are a virtual version of sandwich board men following you around the highstreet into shops watching what you pickup. You wouldnt tolerate the sandwich board men, so why tolerate popup adverts? Is that not psychological harassment? Ban popup adverts I say they spread viruses, although MS did slip me an update onto my Dell Laptop which stopped them, didnt ask for it, but if anyone wants a copy let me know.... Its a special edition...

        4. Cynic_999

          Re: Jurisdiction

          "

          If I went to the US, killed someone, then fled back to the UK, I would rightly expect to be extradited. I committed a crime in the US, then left their jurisdiction in an attempt to avoid the law.

          "

          That's an easy one because all aspects of the crime took place in one country. However, what if you fired a missile aimed at the U.S. from your garden which killed someone in New York?

  24. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You may like this tweet then

    Someone clearly shares my sense of humour..

  25. streaky
    Alert

    Police..

    As somebody (I've spoken before on these forums about how similar to the Pippa Middleton case it is minus the attempted selling of information to the press) battling to get the police to *investigate* (not prosecute, just talk to the victim about it) what seems like a cut/dry case to me with the perpetrator known and third party proof available - I can tell you the police won't touch CMA cases with a bargepole.

    Still trying to wrangle the complaints procedure of the force involved so I don't want to talk too much about it but.. yeah.. they're not interested unless you're a Royal, even if both the victim and perpetrator are in the UK - so is it a shock they're farming cases out to more competent countries who will do simple follow-up? Not to me.

    When is the law not the law? When the police won't investigate.

  26. PacketPusher
    Megaphone

    Either or Both?

    There have been some fascinating analogies about where the crime was committed, but it seems to me that crimes are being committed in both places. The UK should have first dibs on prosecuting Mr. Love as he is currently in the UK. If they choose not to or the US feels that the punishment is inadequate, then they should be able to push for their own prosecution. Of course the UK has the power to tell the US to take a flying leap, but there could be political or financial consequences to that.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why need it at all?

    Why is a computer misuse act needed at all?

    Example 1, he was involved in conspiracy to burgle.

    Example 2, he was involved in posession and conversion of stolen property.

    Neither of those actions needed a CMA to prosecute.

    If literally the only offense anyone commits is to access a computer system without authorisation, without criminal intent or in furtherance of any other aim, with no damage committed (no, you don't get to claim that those hundreds of thousands of dollars you had to pay to consultants to secure your system afterwards were 'caused by him') what harm, exactly, has been committed?

    1. tr1ck5t3r

      Re: Why need it at all?

      So how can the US claim to know Lauri Loves hacks were not a premeditated botnet run by a third actor? The US wont publish their evidence so he cant be extradited in my opinion. I found something on my windows machine hiding in the MSR partition, it removed itself but I took photo's of it using an old digital camera and kept them off the computer. I've got the partition loaded in Partition Magic Hex editor so unlike photos taken on smart phone's the actors miscalculated on this one.

      Its convenient for Windows to have so many bugs in a moving target basis. If M$ were interested in security they would have developed a secure method to update windows which also verified the legality of the software, but this bread & circus is just part of the charade of the society we live in.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: Why need it at all?

      "Why is a computer misuse act needed at all?"

      Because the actions complained of are offences under the Computer Misuse Act, not the Theft Act, not the Road Traffic Act, the Trades Description Act or some other random act. The act which applies is that which addresses the action complained of. Is that really so difficult?

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why can't governments come to agreement on this?

    If the US laws were broken, allow the US law and sentencing to apply but he gets jailed in the UK. Likewise if a US citizen hacks the UK, UK law and sentencing would apply but he gets jailed in the US.

    Then there are no concerns about how he's treated in prison or distance from family. If the UK government is concerned about length of sentence, maybe they can help represent him in the trial or plea bargaining negotiations.

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re. Governments

    Hell will freeze over before Governments agree on *anything*.

    Re. botnets, do you have evidence of this? As there are a lot of cases recently of state sponsored "hackers" being responsible for damaging the systems of folks investigating MH-17, in fact I now have evidence that my recent difficulties online with random system failures etc could have been the exact same group. The rot really does go deep on this, with senior figures in all three major political groups in the UK being complicit in the affair and Litvinenko's death-by-polonium.

    Same with Mckinnon and others, someone was pulling the strings and got these suggestible folks to do their dirty work for them then pulled the plug when they got caught. The problem is (as the case with the Imperius curse) proving who the liars are and who were simply "following orders".

    This question needs to be asked of May and others, we cannot tolerate any evading the question on this issue as it directly affects national security. If Love was being "told" to hack by a third party and there is any suggestion at all that IM6I/CHQG was involved directly or indirectly in this then the charges should be dropped as to do otherwise is not only underhand but illegal.

  30. tr1ck5t3r

    Re Imperius curse, what I would probably liken to "curiosity killed the cat", is there any harm done, time will tell? Just how do you interpret those words, do you project fear or hope?

    The CMA is also designed to stop people outing the spooks and their actors, just like Military has to be secret to hide the fact they break their own laws like experimenting on the public. The internet with the aid of US tech giants enable the spooks to carry out their dark arts. I wont explain how I know, but I know when something is up, so has the experiment failed if the lab rat was acting up all along? Intelligence matching intelligence on possibilities. Whose pushing whose buttons?

    Zimbardo et al have a lot to answer for.

    1. Conundrum1885

      Re. Zimbardo

      Agreed. Also in the case of US copyright laws the penalties can be truly horrific. I have actually heard of cases where people refused to "accept" the plea-bargain initially and eventually caved in because the 99-year term was being mentioned. In fact in some of those cases the evidence was circumstantial at best and had this been in the UK at the most the sentence would have been at most a fine or equivalent custodial sentence for nonpayment.

      We as a society need to move on from the ivory castle approach for intellectual property that is holding science back by decades due to paywalls (RIP Aaron Swartz) and other needless curtailments of civil liberties in the name of "security" against nebulous enemies that hide in plain sight while being secretly funded by our Government.

      We will not permit the extradition of anyone to the US to face trial as this is tantamount to a death-sentence-by-proxy. If this makes us terrorists then so be it, detain all of us.

      1. tr1ck5t3r

        Re: Re. Zimbardo

        Copyright and intellectual property is tricky. How do you quantify without the help of the spooks who can monitor everything that people cant arrive at a solution independently. History shows people around the world have arrived at discoverys in science independently, but it also stifles new discoveries and developments. The problem here is the financial system and the way it works. It makes us fight one another. Sure people should be paid for the work they do and their discoveries but this is where medals and other forms of public recognition could be weighted more properly instead of the current skewed bias to the person with the most money is considered the best. Monkeys worship money but it does also grease society better than anything else if we are to be honest, but not everyone is motivated by money or fame. Some have ego's which need massaging as we see with celebrities others just want a quiet life getting enough sleep & other creature comforts to get on with what they want without being disturbed even by people in the same house. Nothing worse than having strong instincts which keep you half awake or wake you up before you have got all you need only to suffer all the negative effects of sleep deprivation, when someone else is moving around the house. Nikola Tesla a famed night worker & I would suggest found a natural way to compensate for what I would call his ADHD. Now a days we drug kids with ADHD making zombie robots, this is stifling future creativity harming mankinds future developments, but because the financial system restricts our options in the way it works, people end up in a cycle of negativity which then generates the laws we have today. So in effect the law is banning the attainment of knowledge with the likes of Lauri Love whilst the US fails to accept the systems of its geniuses of geniuses were compromised possibly due to laziness in sys admins not trying to be adequately educated and/or the hubris of the belief in software is fit for purpose when its not fit for purpose. Its interesting that MS pulled out of the firewall market I think, noted with its absence in SBS2008R2 iirc. Is that an admission of failure or an example of the direction of the US military industrial complex was turning to. I'm not against money, but its current method of distribution & redistribution is flawed not to mention the fact that money is created when we take on loans like a mortgage which then inflates the money supply. So with that in mind, the best creditworthy people can take on the most debt, inflating the money supply further so everyone elses % of the money pot gets smaller, in effect financially cleansing everyone else which is not illegal but ethnic cleansing is illegal. Again I have to question the laws put in place. Where ever I look I see problems which could be fixed with todays knowledge which would help make things more eco friendly, like I had to light a coal boiler the other day. Firstly it has a gravity feed which takes hot water upstairs when the pump is not on, yet why can the pump come on and circulate it downstair only during a time period ie daylight hours, and in general why cant central heating circulate water between upstairs and downstairs when needed? Theres no need to circulate water downstairs at night when everyone is asleep for example, and no need to circulate water upstairs during the day. Just one example of little engineering tweaks that should not cost too much money but could save the environment loads. UK Part P legislation prevents people tinkering building their own solution with the help of a say a Rpi. Its just so frustrating as we have so much knowledge and we cnat use it because laws hold us back in many ways, which means law is not fit for purpose. Ok it attempts to stop harm, but is it quantify this correctly in the first place if its just focused on the hear and now and not quantifying the problems its building up for humans in the future? The UK is forecast to have just 0.1% spare leccy capacity this year, yet we cant role out intelligent housing due to building regs, which my Bro knows all about that. Ergo are the so called experts really experts, just like I question legal experts and the laws? Plus picking investors if thats a solution mooted cant be trusted, once bitten twice shy and all that. So life is complicated and tricky to say the least and never as simply as many experts like to portray.

  31. Dr Patrick J R Harkin

    Surely the CMA con ONLY be prosecuted in thge UK?

    If the offence occurred in the US, then the equivalent US law is applied but only in a US court.

    If I launch a piano by trebuchet over an international boundary and damage a house in another country, the laws against criminal damage of that country apply and I should face trial over there. If instead of a piano, I use a cow, then laws against animal cruelty may have been broken in two jurisdictions and charges could be pressed in both location.

    1. tr1ck5t3r

      Re: Surely the CMA con ONLY be prosecuted in thge UK?

      But you fail to even question if the laws are right and fit for purpose in todays supposedly enlightened world?

      What is the spirit of the law?

      Probably to prevent malicious harm to others, yet the law is weighted stupidly in favour of physical and not mental harm. Can you quantify the mental effects on a victim? Does money as compensation make it better for the victim? Plus if the State wants to be judge jury and hangman, have they failed in their responsibilities to even educate the public properly? Lets face state school education is crap, even Labour MP's who benefited from being educated at grammer schools and/or send their kids to private school know this. So with this in mind, have you not got flawed individuals running Govt looking after no1 instead of fulfilling their public duty, despite making a big play on their public service?

      Plus considering how different we all are, how can one law fit all? Its like Vitamin Recommended Daily Amounts, considering the different levels of exercise we all do from being a couch potatoe to a fitness freak, being fat & thing, tall & short, how on earth can a Vitamin RDA be fit for purpose, at best it should be called a Minimum Daily Amount, but the so called experts in the Govt's SACN dept that set these things think they know best, even though Govt medical advisors admit they made up the safe alcohol consumption limits in the 70's or 80's. Govt are fire fighting, you saw this with Osborne announce more Govt spending just after the Chinese state visit which announced a series of trade deals between the two countries. Govt borrowing is designed to fill the vacuum left by most people being tapped out or not wanting to play the game inflating the BoE M4 figure. Its made harder with a disingenuous media fueling your conformation bias, for example back in the 70's the British Bread & Circus (BBC) used to just tell the news the facts in a concise unspun manner mostly, look at how little news we get today, with things like "coming up in the program" during the news reports along with overt bias. I have to get news from around the world to get a feel for what is really going on. But the best divide and conquer technique is how we are made to vote. You get a popularity contest every few years for a couple of stooges, and then mid term the puppet is changed in an unelected manner.

      If you cant see you are being had over by so called clever deceitful people sucking on the taxpayers teat then I dont hold much hope for most people at enlightening themselves, but thats probably because if you treat people like idiots you get idiots. The other trick is to make people think they cant change anything so can you kill an idea? The internet certainly makes it possible despite the illusion of "free" communication, you dont know that all these comments are not just put up by sockpuppets having hijacked DNS at the ISP and then doing a proxy server MITM attack on websites, injecting stories to phish your thoughts. Big Brother is here and now and its very pervasive, but like Gollum out of Lord ofthe Rings most people would rather shy away from it. So am I waisting my time in a Resource Burn exercise? Time will tell. I live in hope.

  32. Jason Hindle

    I thought where the crime was felt mattered

    With any law? Not just computer misuse? Send a threatening snail mail to someone in the US, threatening to break their legs, and I expect a request for extradition would probably offend.

    1. tr1ck5t3r

      Re: I thought where the crime was felt mattered

      You cant always look at the most obvious action as being the intended action, you see this all the time, its called misdirection or magic tricks. What if the action was phishing for others like trying to find out about whether mail is read in the US or email in the UK? Whats the ultimate hack? Outing the spooks capabilities trying to bring it out into the open. Do you think everyone is focused in the hear and now, or do you think planning and operations can take place over decades?

      1. tr1ck5t3r

        Re: I thought where the crime was felt mattered

        I'll add, I used to tell my parents when I was a kid I would choose their nursing home. Is that not planning especially when I gave her the nick name Hyacinth Bucket? Never under estimate kids intelligence, just because they might not know everything doesnt mean to say they dont take it and learn from it which raises more and more questions that need answering which then creates new targets to learn from.

  33. smallseo

    I may be bias but ..

    Yes, offences commited in the UK should be prosecuted in the UK.

    The physical location from which the action took place is where the crime was commited, it's where the criminal was located during the act.

    Cybercrime does muddle the issue, and the topic of 'presence' has been discussed for years.

    Supposing a person could throw a stone as far as they liked, and they chose to throw a stone from the UK to a green house in Australia, where should they be tried ?

    In the UK, since that's where they commited the crime from.

    When i went through all this the CPS found that the DoJ had no evidence of the damage i was accused of, it was all hearsay according to the CPS after reviewing it.

    The real question is, do we trust this particular extradition partner to act honestly and fairly.

    I say NO!

  34. Glenturret Single Malt

    Mirror image

    What would happen if an American citizen on the autistic sprctrum and resident in USA successfully hacked into the files of some UK Government agencies?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022