4 ms·

This has dragged on way too long. Glad there's finally going to be a decision (hopefully it's the right one). Even if you take away the Asperger's Syndrome a UK

This has dragged on way too long. Glad there's finally going to be a decision (hopefully it's the right one). Even if you take away the Asperger's Syndrome a UK citizen should not be able to be extradited and face prison in the US for a computer crime of this nature (arguably any computer crime). We will probably see more of this throughout the world. With the ability to commit crime on the internet deciding 'where' that crime took place and who's jurisdiction it falls under is going to be tricky.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
Why any computer crime? Is it not crime in some way? There are valid arguments about where the crime takes place and the jurisdiction in question (the location of the attacker or the victim), but can you say you should never extradite someone for computer crimes? You also need to ask yourself how you think an attack by someone in Iran on the US should be handled. Are you happy with that being dealt with by Iran?
- k-mcgrady 14y ago
  >> "...can you say you should never extradite someone for computer crimes?" That's a big question and as someone with now law experience I can't really answer it. I guess it would all come down to the jurisdiction, that seems to be an important point which needs to be worked out and made clear. Once there are a clear set of rules for determining that I think these cases will be much easier. >> "You also need to ask yourself how you think an attack by someone in Iran on the US should be handled. Are you happy with that being dealt with by Iran?" Creating laws on a country by country basis won't work. If it is agreed that the computer crime takes place in the country the computer and person was in it should be up to that country to deal with it not the country attacked. And, although Iran may not have a good record, if speculation is correct Stuxnet was a US/Israeli invention [1]. What gives the US the right to create/spread a computer virus and then extradite someone for breaking into their computers? It's the double standards that piss me off. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#United_States
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    OK, you flip it around and say if you're Iran, are you happy with the US investigating and prosecuting the Stuxnet attack? I'm not saying I have answers, just that the blanket statement no extradition for computer crimes seems wrong (as most blanket statements are).
    - k-mcgrady 14y ago
      That's not really what I meant. I phrased it incorrectly, forming my opinion as I wrote. I was trying to say that there should be specific rules that are followed in cases of computer crimes. Rules that should apply to all persons and that all countries should sign on to follow. I think this needs to be done because of the issues of jurisdiction. Treating everyone on a case by case basis is unfair and time consuming as this case showed. So you are right, a blanket statement of no extradition for computer crimes is wrong.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago

Why any computer crime? Is it not crime in some way? There are valid arguments about where the crime takes place and the jurisdiction in question (the location of the attacker or the victim), but can you say you should never extradite someone for computer crimes? You also need to ask yourself how you think an attack by someone in Iran on the US should be handled. Are you happy with that being dealt with by Iran?

k-mcgrady 14y ago
>> "...can you say you should never extradite someone for computer crimes?" That's a big question and as someone with now law experience I can't really answer it. I guess it would all come down to the jurisdiction, that seems to be an important point which needs to be worked out and made clear. Once there are a clear set of rules for determining that I think these cases will be much easier. >> "You also need to ask yourself how you think an attack by someone in Iran on the US should be handled. Are you happy with that being dealt with by Iran?" Creating laws on a country by country basis won't work. If it is agreed that the computer crime takes place in the country the computer and person was in it should be up to that country to deal with it not the country attacked. And, although Iran may not have a good record, if speculation is correct Stuxnet was a US/Israeli invention [1]. What gives the US the right to create/spread a computer virus and then extradite someone for breaking into their computers? It's the double standards that piss me off. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#United_States
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  OK, you flip it around and say if you're Iran, are you happy with the US investigating and prosecuting the Stuxnet attack? I'm not saying I have answers, just that the blanket statement no extradition for computer crimes seems wrong (as most blanket statements are).
  - k-mcgrady 14y ago
    That's not really what I meant. I phrased it incorrectly, forming my opinion as I wrote. I was trying to say that there should be specific rules that are followed in cases of computer crimes. Rules that should apply to all persons and that all countries should sign on to follow. I think this needs to be done because of the issues of jurisdiction. Treating everyone on a case by case basis is unfair and time consuming as this case showed. So you are right, a blanket statement of no extradition for computer crimes is wrong.