9 ms·

Possibly because of Brexit, the UK wants to keep its ties with the US as strong as possible by bowing to demands like this

arethuza 10y ago
Charlie Stross put it nicely: "But the UK was the head of an empire in long-term decline. In 1956 the political elite in both the UK and France faced a crisis after the Suez crisis effectively slammed on the brakes on British imperial influence east of the Nile; the USA had asserted the primacy of its own interests. What to do? To paint with a very broad brush, the French response was, "we cannot rely on the perfidious Americans to back us up: we need to preserve the capability to act independently at all costs". The British response was, "we can no longer act alone without American support, so we need to preserve a good relationship with the Americans at all costs." http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-uk-and-nuclear-disarmam.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-u... Mind you - we sometimes did refuse requests from the US (e.g. to get involved in Vietnam) but I think overall this goal does apply - in general we will do whatever it takes to keep in with the US, and the lack of what we would regard as fair treatment for one individual "hacker" is probably seen as a cheap price to pay.
mindslight 10y ago
This situation shows why, unfortunately, movements like Brexit are inherently legless. Here we have a case of a British citizen breaking a British law on British soil, yet being abducted by a foreign justice system under treaties that have destroyed national sovereignty. Yet because the UK is currently pushing back against one such agglomeration of power, it will actually supplicate harder to a different power rather than simply acting as its own country! (And I say this as a USian who is actually concerned with the disastrous effects that exercising world jurisdiction is having on our own society. Why bother spending the effort to secure computers when you can just assuredly throw the witches into cages for decades?)
- foldr 10y ago
  US citizens get extradited to Britain too. It works both ways. In this instance we have someone who's pretty clearly committed a serious crime (stealing credit card info, for example), being extradited to the country which has jurisdiction with respect to the offense committed. It's a completely normal and proper instance of extradition. I'm surprised to see people here falling for the guy's rather overwrought sob story.
  - mindslight 10y ago
    It's only "normal and proper" if one believes such treaties are reasonable. Clearly I do not, and just insisting it is does not form an argument. I reject the idea that merely communicating with some place creates a legal nexus giving that place jurisdiction over you - it contradicts the general concept of freedom of speech. By such reasoning, holocaust denial is effectively criminalized in the US because such speech will reach Germany and possibly change people's minds there.
    - foldr 10y ago
      Lauri Love wasn't merely communicating, he was hacking into US government computer systems and stealing credit card info. If you are just opposed to all instances of extraposition, then ok, but that has nothing to do with this specific case.
      - mindslight 10y ago
        The specific crimes you list are generally accomplished completely through communication, and this seems to be true in this case. (I assume you meant to type 'extradition'). I'm not opposed to all instances of extradition. It seems perfectly reasonable that if someone commits a crime on US soil and flees, that their destination isn't a a safe haven and they be brought back to the jurisdiction they were in. But that's not what happened here - the alleged crime was committed while on British soil, and I don't think he's ever visited the US. So "extraditing" him is actually exporting him to a completely foreign jurisdiction!

arethuza 10y ago

Charlie Stross put it nicely: "But the UK was the head of an empire in long-term decline. In 1956 the political elite in both the UK and France faced a crisis after the Suez crisis effectively slammed on the brakes on British imperial influence east of the Nile; the USA had asserted the primacy of its own interests. What to do? To paint with a very broad brush, the French response was, "we cannot rely on the perfidious Americans to back us up: we need to preserve the capability to act independently at all costs". The British response was, "we can no longer act alone without American support, so we need to preserve a good relationship with the Americans at all costs." http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-uk-and-nuclear-disarmam.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/04/on-the-u... Mind you - we sometimes did refuse requests from the US (e.g. to get involved in Vietnam) but I think overall this goal does apply - in general we will do whatever it takes to keep in with the US, and the lack of what we would regard as fair treatment for one individual "hacker" is probably seen as a cheap price to pay.

mindslight 10y ago

This situation shows why, unfortunately, movements like Brexit are inherently legless. Here we have a case of a British citizen breaking a British law on British soil, yet being abducted by a foreign justice system under treaties that have destroyed national sovereignty. Yet because the UK is currently pushing back against one such agglomeration of power, it will actually supplicate harder to a different power rather than simply acting as its own country! (And I say this as a USian who is actually concerned with the disastrous effects that exercising world jurisdiction is having on our own society. Why bother spending the effort to secure computers when you can just assuredly throw the witches into cages for decades?)

foldr 10y ago
US citizens get extradited to Britain too. It works both ways. In this instance we have someone who's pretty clearly committed a serious crime (stealing credit card info, for example), being extradited to the country which has jurisdiction with respect to the offense committed. It's a completely normal and proper instance of extradition. I'm surprised to see people here falling for the guy's rather overwrought sob story.
- mindslight 10y ago
  It's only "normal and proper" if one believes such treaties are reasonable. Clearly I do not, and just insisting it is does not form an argument. I reject the idea that merely communicating with some place creates a legal nexus giving that place jurisdiction over you - it contradicts the general concept of freedom of speech. By such reasoning, holocaust denial is effectively criminalized in the US because such speech will reach Germany and possibly change people's minds there.
  - foldr 10y ago
    Lauri Love wasn't merely communicating, he was hacking into US government computer systems and stealing credit card info. If you are just opposed to all instances of extraposition, then ok, but that has nothing to do with this specific case.
    - mindslight 10y ago
      The specific crimes you list are generally accomplished completely through communication, and this seems to be true in this case. (I assume you meant to type 'extradition'). I'm not opposed to all instances of extradition. It seems perfectly reasonable that if someone commits a crime on US soil and flees, that their destination isn't a a safe haven and they be brought back to the jurisdiction they were in. But that's not what happened here - the alleged crime was committed while on British soil, and I don't think he's ever visited the US. So "extraditing" him is actually exporting him to a completely foreign jurisdiction!