7 ms·

I still don't understand how a country can grant extradition of a non US citizen to the USA for "espionage". Every country is potentially spying on every other

I still don't understand how a country can grant extradition of a non US citizen to the USA for "espionage". Every country is potentially spying on every other country and it doesn't even matter if they are supposed to be allies or enemies. The only limits are resources.

M95D 3y ago
I guess it depends on what's written in the treaty.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
What would the alternative be? Expats can commit cyber crimes risk-free? Just don't be a citizen of the country you reside in or the country you're attacking and you're immune! They can extradite him because Australia says that they can. Most of our countries at the highest levels agreed to this. It's called international law and it's messy.
- eastbound 3y ago
  > Expats can commit cyber crimes risk-free? Not an expat. Julian Assange is not a US citizen, not on US ground, does not work for a US company. He can’t be committing “espionage” because he’s not inside; at most he can be committing “reporting” upon US practices. Same question arose when EU wrote the GDPR: It was a debate at the time that a US company with no activity in EU could be trialled in EU for misdemeanor against EU laws. Apparently it can.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
    How is he not an expat of Australia?
    - saalweachter 3y ago
      Only Americans get to be expats, everyone else has to be immigrants.
      - eastbound 3y ago
        He came to UK. He’s not an Australian expat in USA.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - _fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
    I think the case against Assange is a bit flimsy. But this argument doesn’t hold. If you hire a hitman and kill someone in the US, you commit a crime in the US. Even if you are not a US citizen of, have never been to the US and don’t work for a US company.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  If you insult the prophet Mohammed in a Facebook post should Iran be able to extradite you from the USA to Iran in order to charge and punish you for committing that crime in their country? Obviously not. Yet the USA does this routinely. It's effectively what Assange did.
  - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
    Normally I think it has to be a crime in both countries. Breaking into computers is.
    - marcus_holmes 3y ago
      Assange did not break into any computers. That was Manning. Publishing US state secrets is not a crime in any other country.
      - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
        > Assange did not break into any computers. I think that is what the trial is to decide.
        marcus_holmes 3y ago
        No, the USA is specifically only charging him with publication of unredacted documents. They are not charging him with obtaining the secrets (that was Manning) but just with publishing them without redacting the names of US informants. At least, that's what they're claiming at the extradition; what they subsequently choose to actually charge him with once he's on US soil is a different thing.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
graemep 3y ago
I suspect part of the answer is that most or all countries regard leading information to the the public to be far worse than leaking it to other countries. > Every country is potentially spying on every other country and it doesn't even matter if they are supposed to be allies or enemies. Very true. The UK spying on Belgium and the US spying on Germany come to mind., but that is "business as usual" and no one expects it to change or start going after people involved.
- K0balt 3y ago
  Espionage and disclosure are two different things. Espionage is expected and deterred as possible but because everyone has spies everyone tends to play nice when they get caught, because they don’t want their own agents mistreated. Disclosure, on the other hand, threatens the power structure of all players. People need to understand that the every person is meant to be firmly under the foot of the ruling class, and understanding the mechanisms by which this is accomplished is verboten. The excuses range from “what about the children” to “national security” but the goal is the same - maintaining a healthy imbalance of information and power. Anything that significantly threatens that imbalance will be met with extreme prejudice. JA overplayed his hand and underestimated the willingness of those involved to absorb casualties in order to stem the proliferation of infrastructure which might work against that treasured monopoly of coercion. Encryption, distributed systems, anonymous networks, and related technologies are the only effective means to provide a counter to the asymmetric threats that endanger our personal agency. These technologies are much more important to a free society than any possible harm that they may facilitate. Those harms existed before the internet, and will not go away if they are made slightly more difficult. The ability to pervasively maintain an efficiently functioning surveillance state requires the internet, and P/A technologies are critical to countering the efficiency of this capability.
  - FpUser 3y ago
    >"everyone has spies everyone tends to play nice when they get caught" Nope. "Nice" only comes if they are exchanged. Otherwise just rot in jail.
throw0101c 3y ago
> I still don't understand how a country can grant extradition of a non US citizen to the USA for "espionage". The act happened on a computer system with-in US jurisdiction. See also "Three North Korean Military Hackers Indicted in Wide-Ranging Scheme to Commit Cyberattacks and Financial Crimes Across the Globe": > Indictment Expands 2018 Case that Detailed Attack on Sony Pictures and Creation of WannaCry Ransomware by Adding Two New Defendants and Recent Global Schemes to Steal Money and Cryptocurrency from Banks and Businesses while Operating in North Korea, China * https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-north-korean-military-hackers-indicted-wide-ranging-scheme-commit-cyberattacks-and https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-north-korean-military-h... * https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/17/north-korea-hack-cryptocurrency-us-charges https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/17/north-kor... * https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56103921 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56103921 > Every country is potentially spying on every other country and it doesn't even matter if they are supposed to be allies or enemies. There are 'official' spies that have diplomatic immunity, and so cannot be charged, but can be expelled. The 'unofficial' spies can certainly be charged: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/29/fbi-breaks-up-alleged-russian-spy-ring-deep-cover https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/29/fbi-breaks-up-... When it comes to cyber-y stuff, certainly countries work against each other, but if it's a "group" that is doing the attacks, it may be hard to identify the individuals, but when they are identified, they can be charged: * https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/25/china_apt31_charges/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/25/china_apt31_charges/
- Etherlord87 3y ago
  > The act happened on a computer system with-in US jurisdiction. So let's say I google some information about Koran and find a website with Koran, analysis etc. Turns out it's hosted in Saudi Arabia, and the act of me, an atheist, reading Koran is blasphemy, punishable with death. So should I be extradited to Saudi Arabia, given that the act happened on a computer system with-in Saudi Arabia?
  - throw0101c 3y ago
    > So should I be extradited to Saudi Arabia, given that the act happened on a computer system with-in Saudi Arabia? IANAL: AIUI, extradition generally only occurs if the (alleged) action is a crime in both jurisdiction. > If Country A has no laws against blasphemy, for example, a lack of double criminality could prevent a suspect from being extradited from Country A to face blasphemy charges in another country, i.e. no outbound extradition from Country A, and neither are citizens of Country A eligible for international prisoner transfers from another country having criminally convicted them for blasphemy, i.e. no inbound prisoner transfer to Country A. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_criminality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_criminality Blasphemy (against the Quran) is not a crime in (e.g.) the US, so generally you could not be extradited from there for it. Also, there is no the treaty: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia–United_States_relations#Extradition_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia–United_States_rel... Whereas (say) unauthorized computer access is a crime in many places, and so it could be a mutual-crime eligible for extradition. Of course if you live in Country A and are charged in Country B which has no treaty with A, you could potentially (IANAL) be arrested in Country C—which does have a treaty with B—if you were travelling there.
slibhb 3y ago
That's kind of the point. Assange wasn't acting on behalf of his country. If he was, there'd be much less of an issue. I think it's a miscarriage of justice that Assange is just sitting in jail. At the same time, his defenders don't admit that he solicited and provided technical assistance to Americans who expressed interest in stealing secrets. Plus he's almost certainly a creep. The condom-removal allegations are very likely true. While not relevant to his crimes, this makes him much less sympathetic.
- 2devnull 3y ago
  Condom removal? Edit: I see the law is catching up there: https://apnews.com/article/health-crime-california-gavin-newsom https://apnews.com/article/health-crime-california-gavin-new...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
surfingdino 3y ago
It's a complex legal matter and nobody involved is in any rush to make hasty decisions, because they may impact future extradition requests. Speaking of the future, intentional or not, Assange's case has a freezing effect on people who might be thinking of sharing secrets. That's already a win for those who don't want secrets to be shared with the public.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  >Speaking of the future, intentional or not, Assange's case has a freezing effect on people who might be thinking of sharing secrets Saying Assange "shared" secrets seems incorrect. Manning shared secrets with Assange so that Assange could publish them. Punishing Manning surely scared those considering sharing secrets. Punishing Assange would frighten those considering publishing secrets, something the US has generally been unable to freely do.
  - surfingdino 3y ago
    We might be splitting hairs here, but is publishing not sharing?
    - boomboomsubban 3y ago
      From my position, your post looked like it was saying the prosecution of Assange would scare whistleblowers not journalists. You probably meant publishers, but I figured clarification would be better. I say that, but my post also could use clarification. The US has typically been unable to scare publishers of documents, the last time they really tried was with the Pentagon Papers and the Supreme Court ruled they couldn't punish publishers.
- hnbad 3y ago
  It's important to keep in mind that this is not just about the US. Countries not aligned with the US may have an interest in exposing the US but most countries do not have an interest of being exposed in a similar manner and setting an example with Assange not only deters exposure of the US but exposure of any of the countries aligned with the US and supporting the extradition.
bdw5204 3y ago
Arguably, the rest of the "free world" can be seen as provinces of an American Empire with their independence. From that perspective, the Assange extradition makes perfect sense. This isn't as crazy as it sounds because the Roman Empire had provinces which were technically "independent" monarchies aligned with Rome. Most famously, Egypt under Cleopatra and Judea under Herod.
- williamdclt 3y ago
  > Arguably You're going to have to write a book or two of argumentation, because you seem like you're drawing parallels between intersecting lines
- api 3y ago
  If you believe “free world” should be in quotes you need to travel more or talk to more expats. Maybe we really do need a little dance with authoritarianism here to remind people what that is.
  - devsda 3y ago
    I think the "free world" here is not a reference to the people's freedom but a reference to the sovereignty & freedom of national governments themselves w.r.t to certain policies on the global stage.
  - PickledHotdog 3y ago
    Traveller and expat here - "free world" is absolutely correct. Even its allies aren't free of government interference from the US.
    - api 3y ago
      I meant at the individual level. I don't care nearly as much about what governments can do.
      - bdw5204 3y ago
doikor 3y ago
Important part is that it is the countries spying in each other not private individuals. This gives the spy protection as both sides are spying on each other so usually what happens is some snarky comment/strongly worded letter and expulsion of a few spies back to their home country from both sides. In the worst case someone goes to prison but usually in response the other side also finds some spies to put into prison too as "revenge". Also whatever information the spies manage to get in general is not released to the public.
VoodooJuJu 3y ago
They're allowed to because justice is the interest of the stronger.
- Lionga 3y ago
  bigger army diplomacy
amanaplanacanal 3y ago
I thought the legal case was about hacking, not espionage.
singularity2001 3y ago
Remember the judge of Epstein who boasted that he got murderers aquitted? That's the level of legal juggling you get in such cases.

M95D 3y ago

I guess it depends on what's written in the treaty.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

What would the alternative be? Expats can commit cyber crimes risk-free? Just don't be a citizen of the country you reside in or the country you're attacking and you're immune! They can extradite him because Australia says that they can. Most of our countries at the highest levels agreed to this. It's called international law and it's messy.

eastbound 3y ago
> Expats can commit cyber crimes risk-free? Not an expat. Julian Assange is not a US citizen, not on US ground, does not work for a US company. He can’t be committing “espionage” because he’s not inside; at most he can be committing “reporting” upon US practices. Same question arose when EU wrote the GDPR: It was a debate at the time that a US company with no activity in EU could be trialled in EU for misdemeanor against EU laws. Apparently it can.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  How is he not an expat of Australia?
  - saalweachter 3y ago
    Only Americans get to be expats, everyone else has to be immigrants.
    - eastbound 3y ago
      He came to UK. He’s not an Australian expat in USA.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- _fizz_buzz_ 3y ago
  I think the case against Assange is a bit flimsy. But this argument doesn’t hold. If you hire a hitman and kill someone in the US, you commit a crime in the US. Even if you are not a US citizen of, have never been to the US and don’t work for a US company.
marcus_holmes 3y ago
If you insult the prophet Mohammed in a Facebook post should Iran be able to extradite you from the USA to Iran in order to charge and punish you for committing that crime in their country? Obviously not. Yet the USA does this routinely. It's effectively what Assange did.
- amanaplanacanal 3y ago
  Normally I think it has to be a crime in both countries. Breaking into computers is.
  - marcus_holmes 3y ago
    Assange did not break into any computers. That was Manning. Publishing US state secrets is not a crime in any other country.
    - amanaplanacanal 3y ago
      > Assange did not break into any computers. I think that is what the trial is to decide.
      - marcus_holmes 3y ago
        No, the USA is specifically only charging him with publication of unredacted documents. They are not charging him with obtaining the secrets (that was Manning) but just with publishing them without redacting the names of US informants. At least, that's what they're claiming at the extradition; what they subsequently choose to actually charge him with once he's on US soil is a different thing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

graemep 3y ago

I suspect part of the answer is that most or all countries regard leading information to the the public to be far worse than leaking it to other countries. > Every country is potentially spying on every other country and it doesn't even matter if they are supposed to be allies or enemies. Very true. The UK spying on Belgium and the US spying on Germany come to mind., but that is "business as usual" and no one expects it to change or start going after people involved.

K0balt 3y ago
Espionage and disclosure are two different things. Espionage is expected and deterred as possible but because everyone has spies everyone tends to play nice when they get caught, because they don’t want their own agents mistreated. Disclosure, on the other hand, threatens the power structure of all players. People need to understand that the every person is meant to be firmly under the foot of the ruling class, and understanding the mechanisms by which this is accomplished is verboten. The excuses range from “what about the children” to “national security” but the goal is the same - maintaining a healthy imbalance of information and power. Anything that significantly threatens that imbalance will be met with extreme prejudice. JA overplayed his hand and underestimated the willingness of those involved to absorb casualties in order to stem the proliferation of infrastructure which might work against that treasured monopoly of coercion. Encryption, distributed systems, anonymous networks, and related technologies are the only effective means to provide a counter to the asymmetric threats that endanger our personal agency. These technologies are much more important to a free society than any possible harm that they may facilitate. Those harms existed before the internet, and will not go away if they are made slightly more difficult. The ability to pervasively maintain an efficiently functioning surveillance state requires the internet, and P/A technologies are critical to countering the efficiency of this capability.
- FpUser 3y ago
  >"everyone has spies everyone tends to play nice when they get caught" Nope. "Nice" only comes if they are exchanged. Otherwise just rot in jail.

throw0101c 3y ago

> I still don't understand how a country can grant extradition of a non US citizen to the USA for "espionage". The act happened on a computer system with-in US jurisdiction. See also "Three North Korean Military Hackers Indicted in Wide-Ranging Scheme to Commit Cyberattacks and Financial Crimes Across the Globe": > Indictment Expands 2018 Case that Detailed Attack on Sony Pictures and Creation of WannaCry Ransomware by Adding Two New Defendants and Recent Global Schemes to Steal Money and Cryptocurrency from Banks and Businesses while Operating in North Korea, China * https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-north-korean-military-hackers-indicted-wide-ranging-scheme-commit-cyberattacks-and https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/three-north-korean-military-h... * https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/17/north-korea-hack-cryptocurrency-us-charges https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/17/north-kor... * https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56103921 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56103921 > Every country is potentially spying on every other country and it doesn't even matter if they are supposed to be allies or enemies. There are 'official' spies that have diplomatic immunity, and so cannot be charged, but can be expelled. The 'unofficial' spies can certainly be charged: * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/29/fbi-breaks-up-alleged-russian-spy-ring-deep-cover https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jun/29/fbi-breaks-up-... When it comes to cyber-y stuff, certainly countries work against each other, but if it's a "group" that is doing the attacks, it may be hard to identify the individuals, but when they are identified, they can be charged: * https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/25/china_apt31_charges/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/03/25/china_apt31_charges/

Etherlord87 3y ago
> The act happened on a computer system with-in US jurisdiction. So let's say I google some information about Koran and find a website with Koran, analysis etc. Turns out it's hosted in Saudi Arabia, and the act of me, an atheist, reading Koran is blasphemy, punishable with death. So should I be extradited to Saudi Arabia, given that the act happened on a computer system with-in Saudi Arabia?
- throw0101c 3y ago
  > So should I be extradited to Saudi Arabia, given that the act happened on a computer system with-in Saudi Arabia? IANAL: AIUI, extradition generally only occurs if the (alleged) action is a crime in both jurisdiction. > If Country A has no laws against blasphemy, for example, a lack of double criminality could prevent a suspect from being extradited from Country A to face blasphemy charges in another country, i.e. no outbound extradition from Country A, and neither are citizens of Country A eligible for international prisoner transfers from another country having criminally convicted them for blasphemy, i.e. no inbound prisoner transfer to Country A. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_criminality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_criminality Blasphemy (against the Quran) is not a crime in (e.g.) the US, so generally you could not be extradited from there for it. Also, there is no the treaty: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia–United_States_relations#Extradition_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia–United_States_rel... Whereas (say) unauthorized computer access is a crime in many places, and so it could be a mutual-crime eligible for extradition. Of course if you live in Country A and are charged in Country B which has no treaty with A, you could potentially (IANAL) be arrested in Country C—which does have a treaty with B—if you were travelling there.

slibhb 3y ago

That's kind of the point. Assange wasn't acting on behalf of his country. If he was, there'd be much less of an issue. I think it's a miscarriage of justice that Assange is just sitting in jail. At the same time, his defenders don't admit that he solicited and provided technical assistance to Americans who expressed interest in stealing secrets. Plus he's almost certainly a creep. The condom-removal allegations are very likely true. While not relevant to his crimes, this makes him much less sympathetic.

2devnull 3y ago
Condom removal? Edit: I see the law is catching up there: https://apnews.com/article/health-crime-california-gavin-newsom https://apnews.com/article/health-crime-california-gavin-new...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

surfingdino 3y ago

It's a complex legal matter and nobody involved is in any rush to make hasty decisions, because they may impact future extradition requests. Speaking of the future, intentional or not, Assange's case has a freezing effect on people who might be thinking of sharing secrets. That's already a win for those who don't want secrets to be shared with the public.

boomboomsubban 3y ago
>Speaking of the future, intentional or not, Assange's case has a freezing effect on people who might be thinking of sharing secrets Saying Assange "shared" secrets seems incorrect. Manning shared secrets with Assange so that Assange could publish them. Punishing Manning surely scared those considering sharing secrets. Punishing Assange would frighten those considering publishing secrets, something the US has generally been unable to freely do.
- surfingdino 3y ago
  We might be splitting hairs here, but is publishing not sharing?
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    From my position, your post looked like it was saying the prosecution of Assange would scare whistleblowers not journalists. You probably meant publishers, but I figured clarification would be better. I say that, but my post also could use clarification. The US has typically been unable to scare publishers of documents, the last time they really tried was with the Pentagon Papers and the Supreme Court ruled they couldn't punish publishers.
hnbad 3y ago
It's important to keep in mind that this is not just about the US. Countries not aligned with the US may have an interest in exposing the US but most countries do not have an interest of being exposed in a similar manner and setting an example with Assange not only deters exposure of the US but exposure of any of the countries aligned with the US and supporting the extradition.

bdw5204 3y ago

Arguably, the rest of the "free world" can be seen as provinces of an American Empire with their independence. From that perspective, the Assange extradition makes perfect sense. This isn't as crazy as it sounds because the Roman Empire had provinces which were technically "independent" monarchies aligned with Rome. Most famously, Egypt under Cleopatra and Judea under Herod.

williamdclt 3y ago
> Arguably You're going to have to write a book or two of argumentation, because you seem like you're drawing parallels between intersecting lines
api 3y ago
If you believe “free world” should be in quotes you need to travel more or talk to more expats. Maybe we really do need a little dance with authoritarianism here to remind people what that is.
- devsda 3y ago
  I think the "free world" here is not a reference to the people's freedom but a reference to the sovereignty & freedom of national governments themselves w.r.t to certain policies on the global stage.
- PickledHotdog 3y ago
  Traveller and expat here - "free world" is absolutely correct. Even its allies aren't free of government interference from the US.
  - api 3y ago
    I meant at the individual level. I don't care nearly as much about what governments can do.
    - bdw5204 3y ago

doikor 3y ago

Important part is that it is the countries spying in each other not private individuals. This gives the spy protection as both sides are spying on each other so usually what happens is some snarky comment/strongly worded letter and expulsion of a few spies back to their home country from both sides. In the worst case someone goes to prison but usually in response the other side also finds some spies to put into prison too as "revenge". Also whatever information the spies manage to get in general is not released to the public.

VoodooJuJu 3y ago

They're allowed to because justice is the interest of the stronger.

Lionga 3y ago
bigger army diplomacy

amanaplanacanal 3y ago

I thought the legal case was about hacking, not espionage.

singularity2001 3y ago

Remember the judge of Epstein who boasted that he got murderers aquitted? That's the level of legal juggling you get in such cases.