6 ms·

This doesn't make the fundamental problem here go away: they arrested someone who was not in the United States when allegedly violated a law of the USA. The USA

by chx 8y ago

This doesn't make the fundamental problem here go away: they arrested someone who was not in the United States when allegedly violated a law of the USA. The USA does not have jurisdiction over the entire world. If they thought they had a case, the right way to do this is to issue an arrest warrant and ask the UK to arrest and extradite him. If this was a thing, international travel would halt because you would need to countercheck everything you've ever done online with the laws of the country you are flying to. Consider this fictionary tale: you fly to Budapest for a fun trip. You are jailed for posting the Soviet hammer and sickle on your Facebook two years ago -- it's a crime under Hungarian law to use that symbol. Do you think this is right? Here's the law: Any person who: a) distributes, b) uses before the public at large, or c) publicly exhibits, the swastika, the insignia of the SS, the arrow cross, the sickle and hammer, the five-pointed red star or any symbol depicting the above so as to breach public peace - especially in a way to offend the dignity of victims of totalitarian regimes and their right to sanctity - is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by custodial arrest, insofar as the did not result in a more serious criminal offense.

marnett 8y ago
american global hegemony is a thing. fair or not, it exists. if you want out of the purview of the US you have to go to one of its enemy superstates, Russia or China. Even small neutral/hostile nations are not safe forever (eg Assange in Ecuador).
- ninth_ant 8y ago
  It’s not really about hegemony at all. The US does extradite people but this isn’t about that. He was arrested in the US for his impact to people and companies inside the US.
- foobarbazetc 8y ago
  Not really. He travelled to the US. Assange was using Ecuador’s protection and resources for free. At that point you’re at the whim of the Ecuadorian people and their elections. Nothing is forever.
jlarocco 8y ago
I'm okay with how the US handled this. The crime he pleaded guilty to caused innocent people real financial harm, and it's not like the US sent FBI agents over to the UK to pick him up. He flew here on his own, knowing (presumably) that he had committed a crime that could get him arrested here. Kinda stupid to commit crimes against people in a country and then travel to that country before the statute of limitations has expired. I might have a different opinion for victimless crimes, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.
- ryanlopl 8y ago
  FWIW his crimes didn't target any country specifically, so he could've faced trouble anywhere in the world. There's not necessarily anything wrong with prosecuting him in the US, but presumably the US authorities could've just as well spared themselves the work and referred this to the UK authorities in whose jurisdiction the crimes were committed.
  - chx 8y ago
    And that is fine, again, the so called Dread Pirate Roberts 2 was arrested and convincted in the UK mostly based on info the US handed to the UK. The problem is the US arresting someone who was. not. in. the. USA. when committing the crime (if he did).
    - tptacek 8y ago
      If you hack a bunch of computers in China, and China figures it out, and then you visit China, bet that China will arrest and imprison you. I don't see what's out of the ordinary about the fact pattern we're talking about here.
      - tedunangst 8y ago
        American exceptionalism: America is the only country that does these things.
vertex-four 8y ago
> If this was a thing, international travel would halt because you would need to countercheck everything you've ever done online with the laws of the country you are flying to. I mean, for many of us that’s already a problem, and has been for a long time. Ever mentioned your same-sex partner somewhere a Government might be able to find it? There’s now a whole bunch of countries you can’t visit or pass through without being at risk of imprisonment or worse, yay.
- chx 8y ago
  But -- while obviously I do not endorse such laws -- the difference is you are violating their law at that moment, where you stand by just being you. Once again: I fundamentally disagree with such laws but the situation is different.
  - Godel_unicode 8y ago
    Not really. They arrest you, when you arrive in their country, for being gay. It's not like they're extraditing people from other countries for being gay.
    - chx 8y ago
      That's exactly what I said: according to their laws you being gay is a crime -- a crime committed at the time when you are in the country by simply being you. It has nothing to do with Hutchins' arrest which was for a crime committed in the past while being elsewhere.
      - MRD85 8y ago
        If their law makes it illegal to have same-sex sex and they arrest you based on previous evidence of being gay then you're arrested for prior acts.
jwatzman 8y ago
For better or worse, the US is far from unique in this, e.g., this high-profile case here in the UK from the past few weeks: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47847740 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47847740
- chx 8y ago
  Released two days later https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47897214 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47897214
tedunangst 8y ago
Hammer and sickle is just ridiculous, but what about calling somebody a horse? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47862596 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47862596
- chx 8y ago
  Released two days later https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47897214 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47897214
pg_bot 8y ago
Your hypothetical "crime" would be immediately thrown out because you would not be able to prove damages. No crime was committed against a citizen of Hungary, and Facebook is not considered the public at large. A more apt hypothetical would be if you were tricking people into distributing hate symbols from abroad. I think you could make a cogent argument for arrest in that case. The victims of the malware were on American soil. If someone remotely takes control of your smart oven and burns your house down, you have standing to charge them with a crime. The difference is he violated a US law, against a US citizen, while that citizen was in the United States. If you do that and are currently in the US you should expect to be arrested.
Jerry2 8y ago
>The USA does not have jurisdiction over the entire world. Maybe not the whole world but the US has the hegemony over countries where the US military bases reside. All of those countries have signed their sovereignty away through various extradition and trade treaties which give the US DoJ a massive reach over the citizens of those countries. In 2019, if you were to try to escape the long arm of US law, your options are extremely limited. I can't think of a country that would not hand you over to the US because of a massive pressure that the US State Department would put on the host country. Just look at Ecuador which sold Assange for billions in aid.
rhino369 8y ago
If someone shot a missile from one country to the next should they be immune from prosecution. Nobody cares that he wasn’t in the US when he caused harm in the US.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pizzazzaro 8y ago
Its not like he's contributed to anything helpful afterwards - oh wait. Lets be honest with ourselves - banks have a very specific role in the world economy, and have largely quit lending to businesses small enough to actually upset the market. Sure VCs do what they do. But unless you're in something sexy or trendy? Good luck courting them.

by chx 8y ago

marnett 8y ago

american global hegemony is a thing. fair or not, it exists. if you want out of the purview of the US you have to go to one of its enemy superstates, Russia or China. Even small neutral/hostile nations are not safe forever (eg Assange in Ecuador).

ninth_ant 8y ago
It’s not really about hegemony at all. The US does extradite people but this isn’t about that. He was arrested in the US for his impact to people and companies inside the US.
foobarbazetc 8y ago
Not really. He travelled to the US. Assange was using Ecuador’s protection and resources for free. At that point you’re at the whim of the Ecuadorian people and their elections. Nothing is forever.

jlarocco 8y ago

I'm okay with how the US handled this. The crime he pleaded guilty to caused innocent people real financial harm, and it's not like the US sent FBI agents over to the UK to pick him up. He flew here on his own, knowing (presumably) that he had committed a crime that could get him arrested here. Kinda stupid to commit crimes against people in a country and then travel to that country before the statute of limitations has expired. I might have a different opinion for victimless crimes, but it's irrelevant to this discussion.

ryanlopl 8y ago
FWIW his crimes didn't target any country specifically, so he could've faced trouble anywhere in the world. There's not necessarily anything wrong with prosecuting him in the US, but presumably the US authorities could've just as well spared themselves the work and referred this to the UK authorities in whose jurisdiction the crimes were committed.
- chx 8y ago
  And that is fine, again, the so called Dread Pirate Roberts 2 was arrested and convincted in the UK mostly based on info the US handed to the UK. The problem is the US arresting someone who was. not. in. the. USA. when committing the crime (if he did).
  - tptacek 8y ago
    If you hack a bunch of computers in China, and China figures it out, and then you visit China, bet that China will arrest and imprison you. I don't see what's out of the ordinary about the fact pattern we're talking about here.
    - tedunangst 8y ago
      American exceptionalism: America is the only country that does these things.

vertex-four 8y ago

> If this was a thing, international travel would halt because you would need to countercheck everything you've ever done online with the laws of the country you are flying to. I mean, for many of us that’s already a problem, and has been for a long time. Ever mentioned your same-sex partner somewhere a Government might be able to find it? There’s now a whole bunch of countries you can’t visit or pass through without being at risk of imprisonment or worse, yay.

chx 8y ago
But -- while obviously I do not endorse such laws -- the difference is you are violating their law at that moment, where you stand by just being you. Once again: I fundamentally disagree with such laws but the situation is different.
- Godel_unicode 8y ago
  Not really. They arrest you, when you arrive in their country, for being gay. It's not like they're extraditing people from other countries for being gay.
  - chx 8y ago
    That's exactly what I said: according to their laws you being gay is a crime -- a crime committed at the time when you are in the country by simply being you. It has nothing to do with Hutchins' arrest which was for a crime committed in the past while being elsewhere.
    - MRD85 8y ago
      If their law makes it illegal to have same-sex sex and they arrest you based on previous evidence of being gay then you're arrested for prior acts.

jwatzman 8y ago

For better or worse, the US is far from unique in this, e.g., this high-profile case here in the UK from the past few weeks: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47847740 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47847740

chx 8y ago
Released two days later https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47897214 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47897214

tedunangst 8y ago

Hammer and sickle is just ridiculous, but what about calling somebody a horse? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47862596 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47862596

chx 8y ago
Released two days later https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47897214 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47897214

pg_bot 8y ago

Your hypothetical "crime" would be immediately thrown out because you would not be able to prove damages. No crime was committed against a citizen of Hungary, and Facebook is not considered the public at large. A more apt hypothetical would be if you were tricking people into distributing hate symbols from abroad. I think you could make a cogent argument for arrest in that case. The victims of the malware were on American soil. If someone remotely takes control of your smart oven and burns your house down, you have standing to charge them with a crime. The difference is he violated a US law, against a US citizen, while that citizen was in the United States. If you do that and are currently in the US you should expect to be arrested.

Jerry2 8y ago

>The USA does not have jurisdiction over the entire world. Maybe not the whole world but the US has the hegemony over countries where the US military bases reside. All of those countries have signed their sovereignty away through various extradition and trade treaties which give the US DoJ a massive reach over the citizens of those countries. In 2019, if you were to try to escape the long arm of US law, your options are extremely limited. I can't think of a country that would not hand you over to the US because of a massive pressure that the US State Department would put on the host country. Just look at Ecuador which sold Assange for billions in aid.

rhino369 8y ago

If someone shot a missile from one country to the next should they be immune from prosecution. Nobody cares that he wasn’t in the US when he caused harm in the US.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pizzazzaro 8y ago

Its not like he's contributed to anything helpful afterwards - oh wait. Lets be honest with ourselves - banks have a very specific role in the world economy, and have largely quit lending to businesses small enough to actually upset the market. Sure VCs do what they do. But unless you're in something sexy or trendy? Good luck courting them.