4 ms·

If you follow the trail he left, you will notice that the spammer is from Eastern Europe. Good luck getting him extradited.

by soult 15y ago

darklajid 15y ago
Disclaimer: I consider this act a crime and think the responsible person should be punished. That said: Can we please stop this idea of dragging people into other countries (I guess there's one particularly eager doing so)? As long as we're not all on the same page about laws around the globe and while we still don't know what 'hosted in the US' means for a business, for example, I'd rather prefer sticking to local laws. These apply without a discussion. Laws of another country by default don't and I'd have a hard time understanding why this should change (a global nation with one book of law would change my mind here).
- steve-howard 15y ago
  Well we almost have a global nation; we're down to basically 2 countries: the United States, and the countries that better do what the United States says or else.
- gwright 15y ago
  This is exactly the problem that is solved by an extradition treaty. More often than not the alleged crime is a crime in both countries and so extradition is a reasonable approach to the problem. I do agree that the Internet has created jurisdiction issues and criminal issues that aren't well covered by existing law/treaties. I don't think the local/international dichomtomy you describe is as clear cut as you are asserting. Whenever you have international commerce you are going to have all sorts of activities that raise criminal or civil issues that can only be adjudicated via bi-lateral treaties. These issues exist whether the commerce is conducted in-person, by phone, by fax, by email, via HTTP, etc. I think a 'global national with one book of laws' would create way more problems than it would solve and in any case isn't going to happen anytime soon.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    > I do agree that the Internet has created jurisdiction issues and criminal issues that aren't well covered by existing law/treaties. A big problem is that the US only needs "reasonable suspicion" when asking to extradite someone from England. But the UK needs "probable cause" when asking to extradite someone from the US. That means that in the UK the evidence is not tested before a Judge agrees to extradition, yet a US Judge tests the evidence before agreeing the extradition. Babar Ahmed: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17606337 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17606337) Babar Ahmed, held for 7 years in a UK prison without a trial, has asked to be tried in the UK. He ran a website that was (supposedly) pro-terrorist. The site was hosted in the US. The US wants to extradite him and try him in America. This case is interesting because he's not a sympathetic character, yet he claims all he wants is a trial (in a UK court) and a sentence. And also because he's not free, he's been in prison for 7 years already, so it's not as if the UK is an easy option for him.
thematt 15y ago
Forget him being from Europe, even if he was American it would be tough to get law enforcement to investigate (presumably FBI). Unofficially, the bar is millions of dollars in loss before the Feds will allocate resources to a hacking crime.

If you follow the trail he left, you will notice that the spammer is from Eastern Europe. Good luck getting him extradited.

by soult 15y ago

If you follow the trail he left, you will notice that the spammer is from Eastern Europe. Good luck getting him extradited.

darklajid 15y ago

Disclaimer: I consider this act a crime and think the responsible person should be punished. That said: Can we please stop this idea of dragging people into other countries (I guess there's one particularly eager doing so)? As long as we're not all on the same page about laws around the globe and while we still don't know what 'hosted in the US' means for a business, for example, I'd rather prefer sticking to local laws. These apply without a discussion. Laws of another country by default don't and I'd have a hard time understanding why this should change (a global nation with one book of law would change my mind here).

steve-howard 15y ago
Well we almost have a global nation; we're down to basically 2 countries: the United States, and the countries that better do what the United States says or else.
gwright 15y ago
This is exactly the problem that is solved by an extradition treaty. More often than not the alleged crime is a crime in both countries and so extradition is a reasonable approach to the problem. I do agree that the Internet has created jurisdiction issues and criminal issues that aren't well covered by existing law/treaties. I don't think the local/international dichomtomy you describe is as clear cut as you are asserting. Whenever you have international commerce you are going to have all sorts of activities that raise criminal or civil issues that can only be adjudicated via bi-lateral treaties. These issues exist whether the commerce is conducted in-person, by phone, by fax, by email, via HTTP, etc. I think a 'global national with one book of laws' would create way more problems than it would solve and in any case isn't going to happen anytime soon.
- DanBC 15y ago
  > I do agree that the Internet has created jurisdiction issues and criminal issues that aren't well covered by existing law/treaties. A big problem is that the US only needs "reasonable suspicion" when asking to extradite someone from England. But the UK needs "probable cause" when asking to extradite someone from the US. That means that in the UK the evidence is not tested before a Judge agrees to extradition, yet a US Judge tests the evidence before agreeing the extradition. Babar Ahmed: (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17606337 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17606337) Babar Ahmed, held for 7 years in a UK prison without a trial, has asked to be tried in the UK. He ran a website that was (supposedly) pro-terrorist. The site was hosted in the US. The US wants to extradite him and try him in America. This case is interesting because he's not a sympathetic character, yet he claims all he wants is a trial (in a UK court) and a sentence. And also because he's not free, he's been in prison for 7 years already, so it's not as if the UK is an easy option for him.

thematt 15y ago

Forget him being from Europe, even if he was American it would be tough to get law enforcement to investigate (presumably FBI). Unofficially, the bar is millions of dollars in loss before the Feds will allocate resources to a hacking crime.