Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #1063 > unrolled thread

British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-02-27 22:49 -0600
    Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-02-28 05:36 +0000
      Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-28 09:25 +0000
        Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-02-28 09:41 +0000
          Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-28 11:34 +0000
            Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-01 19:08 -0300
              Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-02 00:21 +0000
                Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 08:14 +0000
                  Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-02 09:30 -0300
                    Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 23:31 +0000
                  Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-02 13:07 +0000
                    Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-02 12:19 -0300
                    Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 23:33 +0000
                      Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-03 10:19 +0000
                        Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-03 11:57 -0300
                          Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-03 15:22 +0000
                            Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-03-03 17:56 +0100
                              Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-03 17:23 +0000
                        Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-03-03 17:44 +0100
                          Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-03 17:16 +0000
                        Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-03 17:00 +0000
                Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-02 09:24 -0300
                  Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-03-02 14:00 +0100
                    Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-02 12:11 -0300
                      Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-03-02 16:53 +0100
                        Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 23:38 +0000
                          Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-03 12:00 -0300
                            Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-03 17:03 +0000
                              Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-03 18:02 +0000
                              Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-03 21:52 -0300
            Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-04 23:05 +0100
              Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-05 11:55 +0000
                Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-05 13:11 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#1063 — British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys

> Lauri Love, 28, is accused of causing millions of pounds of damage
> to the US government with a year-long hacking campaign waged from
> his home in Stradishall, a village in Suffolk.
> 
> But even before he can begin to fight that case, Love has an
> additional problem to deal with because of the following:
> 
> On February 7th the deadline for Lauri Love to turn his encryption
> keys over to the UK government expired.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140227/08165326373/british-hacker-faces-extradition-to-us-not-to-mention-five-years-imprisonment-uk-failing-to-hand-over-encryption-keys.shtml

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1064

On 2014-02-28 04:49, Dave Garland wrote:
> 
>> Lauri Love, 28, is accused of causing millions of pounds of damage
>> to the US government with a year-long hacking campaign waged from
>> his home in Stradishall, a village in Suffolk.
>>
>> But even before he can begin to fight that case, Love has an
>> additional problem to deal with because of the following:
>>
>> On February 7th the deadline for Lauri Love to turn his encryption
>> keys over to the UK government expired.

It's good to remember here that Britain isn't a democracy, and never has
been. Parliament was created as a talking shop for would-be-kings, and
soon became part of the oligarchy in its own right. The nearest it has
come to real reform was during the Asquith government of the early 20th
century and Attlee's government immediately after WW2, but both blew
their chances and left effective power in the hands of a small number of
landowners, bankers and their collaborators.

Every would-be government has promised better democracy; every elected
government has delivered more power to landowners and bankers,
introducing ever-more laws to intimidate citizens into servility.
Britain's "unwritten" constitution is, effectively, whatever suits
landowners and bankers, and the police and security services are its
enforcers, there to maintain the power which the few wield over the many.

Democratic revolution is long overdue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1074

In article <lep78t$t1m$2@speranza.aioe.org>, Hils
<hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:

> On 2014-02-28 04:49, Dave Garland wrote:
> > 
> >> Lauri Love, 28, is accused of causing millions of pounds of damage
> >> to the US government with a year-long hacking campaign waged from
> >> his home in Stradishall, a village in Suffolk.
> >>
> >> But even before he can begin to fight that case, Love has an
> >> additional problem to deal with because of the following:

Why should he need to "begin" to fight that case? He's not in the US.

> Britain's "unwritten" constitution is, ...

What gives you the idea it's unwritten? It's just not all written in a
single document.

Magna Carta
Habeus Corpus Act
Bill of Rights (for England, at least)
Various Representation of the People Acts

-- 
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
 lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores 
 the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
 into it in the first place."                             - Douglas Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1075

On 2014-02-28 09:25, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <lep78t$t1m$2@speranza.aioe.org>, Hils
> <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 2014-02-28 04:49, Dave Garland wrote:
>> > >> Lauri Love, 28, is accused of causing millions of pounds of damage
>> >> to the US government with a year-long hacking campaign waged from
>> >> his home in Stradishall, a village in Suffolk.
>> >>
>> >> But even before he can begin to fight that case, Love has an
>> >> additional problem to deal with because of the following:
> 
> Why should he need to "begin" to fight that case? He's not in the US.
> 
>> Britain's "unwritten" constitution is, ...
> 
> What gives you the idea it's unwritten? It's just not all written in a
> single document.
> 
> Magna Carta
> Habeus Corpus Act
> Bill of Rights (for England, at least)
> Various Representation of the People Acts

You may as well include the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act,
which not only allows GCHQ to intercept the communications of citizens
not suspected of any crime, but allows a very wide range of public
employees to intercept private communications for a very wide range of
reasons (the "economic well-being of the United Kingdom" FFS). You may
as well also include the legislation under which David Miranda was
detained and which keeps Julian Assange imprisoned.

If you want to call that mess a "constitution", it's a "constitution"
which treats the majority of citizens as criminals while perpetuating
the unearned and unaccountable privileges of a minority. It's in essence
a feudal "constitution", not a democratic one.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1092

In article <leplje$tid$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Hils
<hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:

> On 2014-02-28 09:25, Tim Streater wrote:
> > In article <lep78t$t1m$2@speranza.aioe.org>, Hils
> > <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 2014-02-28 04:49, Dave Garland wrote:
> >> > >> Lauri Love, 28, is accused of causing millions of pounds of damage
> >> >> to the US government with a year-long hacking campaign waged from
> >> >> his home in Stradishall, a village in Suffolk.
> >> >>
> >> >> But even before he can begin to fight that case, Love has an
> >> >> additional problem to deal with because of the following:
> > 
> > Why should he need to "begin" to fight that case? He's not in the US.
> > 
> >> Britain's "unwritten" constitution is, ...
> > 
> > What gives you the idea it's unwritten? It's just not all written in a
> > single document.
> > 
> > Magna Carta
> > Habeus Corpus Act
> > Bill of Rights (for England, at least)
> > Various Representation of the People Acts
> 
> You may as well include the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act,
> which not only allows GCHQ to intercept the communications of citizens
> not suspected of any crime, but allows a very wide range of public
> employees to intercept private communications for a very wide range of
> reasons (the "economic well-being of the United Kingdom" FFS).

A bad piece of legislation that should be repealed. It is also being
misused by local authorities.

> You may as well also include the legislation under which David
> Miranda was detained ...

I know nothing of him.

> and which keeps Julian Assange imprisoned.

Assange's supposed reason is that, once extradited to Sweden, he could
then be sent on to the US, although I'm not sure why. The extradition
to Sweden issue may, for all I know, be being done under the European
Arrest Warrant, which, along with the actual Extradition Treaty
conditions between the UK and the US, was another egregious action
taken by the charlatan Blair. If someone is wanted by a foreign state,
then the validity of the case should be tested in a UK court.

> If you want to call that mess a "constitution", it's a "constitution"
> which treats the majority of citizens as criminals while perpetuating
> the unearned and unaccountable privileges of a minority. It's in essence
> a feudal "constitution", not a democratic one.

This is merely your political opinion.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1129

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:34:13 +0000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

>Assange's supposed reason is that, once extradited to Sweden, he could
>then be sent on to the US, although I'm not sure why.

	For "Treason". One of the few people in the world accused of
treason by a foreign (to him) country.
	Sweden has extradition treaties with the US. Once he lands
there, he'll be on his way to Guantanamo the next day. Sweden will
waiver the accusations of a ruptured condom.
	OT ? Probably not. About computer freedom and privacy.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1131

In article <t9m4h99dkthct36ojt285gf5k5a5ohfbd3@4ax.com>, Shadow
<Sh@dow.br> wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:34:13 +0000, Tim Streater
> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> 
> >Assange's supposed reason is that, once extradited to Sweden, he could
> >then be sent on to the US, although I'm not sure why.
> 
>    For "Treason". One of the few people in the world accused of
> treason by a foreign (to him) country.

Is this another case of the US arbitrarily extending its laws to places
and in ways that it has no business doing? They do have form in that
regard.

>    Sweden has extradition treaties with the US. Once he lands
> there, he'll be on his way to Guantanamo the next day.

In that case, you'd expect the US to be asking the UK to extradite him.
Instead, its the Swedes. Why would that be? And why would the Swedes
send him to the US? I know ours is a fuckup in re: the US, but is the
Swedes' one also?

-- 
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
 lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores 
 the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
 into it in the first place."                             - Douglas Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1134

In message <020320140021050749%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
  Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In that case, you'd expect the US to be asking the UK to extradite him.

The UK doesn't have him.

-- 
Because you can't cotton to evil. No Sir. You have to smack evil on the
nose with the rolled-up newspaper of justice and say, 'Bad evil. Bad BAD
evil"'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1139

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 08:14:36 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <020320140021050749%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>  Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> In that case, you'd expect the US to be asking the UK to extradite him.
>
>The UK doesn't have him.

	But the UK agreed with his extradition. The fact that he
slipped into a friendly embassy is quite beside the point. Do you
think he's enjoyed his last 20 months in a small space ?

	Picture of Assange. Royal "democratic" escort  to airport
waiting outside.

http://www.operamundi.com.br/media/images/635071642088277769w.jpg

	Better than a torture chamber in Guantanamo, I suppose.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1169

In message <2o86h91v5btfh89bnt99nljqeb067jllml@4ax.com> 
  Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 08:14:36 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>>In message <020320140021050749%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>>  Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>> In that case, you'd expect the US to be asking the UK to extradite him.
>>
>>The UK doesn't have him.

> 	But the UK agreed with his extradition. The fact that he
> slipped into a friendly embassy is quite beside the point. Do you
> think he's enjoyed his last 20 months in a small space ?

What does that have to do with the comment I replied to?

The UK cannot extradite him to the US because the UK does not have him.
Of course they would if they could, The UK government has become nothing
more than a testicle sucking lackey to the US, exactly like Sweden.

"Wait, one of our citizens violated US civil law? sure, you can arrest
them. Why not."

Fucking spineless.

-- 
Slab: Jus' say 'AarrghaarrghpleeassennononoUGH'. --Feet of Clay

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1142

In article <slrnlh5q3b.h2.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <020320140021050749%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>   Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> > In that case, you'd expect the US to be asking the UK to extradite him.
> 
> The UK doesn't have him.

Neither does Sweden. My point is that if the UK *did* have him, and so
was in a position to extradite him to Sweden, the Yanks could ask the
UK for him directly without waiting for him to get to Sweden and then
asking the Swedes.

-- 
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1149

On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 13:07:20 +0000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

>In article <slrnlh5q3b.h2.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
><g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <020320140021050749%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>>   Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> > In that case, you'd expect the US to be asking the UK to extradite him.
>> 
>> The UK doesn't have him.
>
>Neither does Sweden. My point is that if the UK *did* have him, and so
>was in a position to extradite him to Sweden, the Yanks could ask the
>UK for him directly without waiting for him to get to Sweden and then
>asking the Swedes.

	As I said, too much "USA lapdog" calling. Politicians are very
sensitive to that. Specially since Assange is very popular. Handing a
British Commonwealth citizen over to be tortured by a non-Commonwealth
country would be a big political no-no.
	Not the case of Sweden. They have a treaty with the US.
Politicians there can just put it down to "obeying a treaty set up by
predecessors, not our fault at all, old chum"
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1170

In message <020320141307209311%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
  Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnlh5q3b.h2.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <020320140021050749%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>>   Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> > In that case, you'd expect the US to be asking the UK to extradite him.
>> 
>> The UK doesn't have him.

> Neither does Sweden. My point is that if the UK *did* have him, and so
> was in a position to extradite him to Sweden, the Yanks could ask the
> UK for him directly without waiting for him to get to Sweden and then
> asking the Swedes.

Not as easily. Assange is at least a citizen of the commonwealth,a nd as
such extraditing him to the US would be tricky because he is a well
known figure. Extraditing some nobody for 'hacking' is A-OK, but if the
UK handed him directly to the US it would be a problem.

-- 
Ille Qui Nos Omnes Servabit

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1185

In article <slrnlh7fv4.6aq.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <020320141307209311%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>   Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> > In article <slrnlh5q3b.h2.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> >> In message <020320140021050749%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
> >>   Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> >> > In that case, you'd expect the US to be asking the UK to extradite him.
> >> 
> >> The UK doesn't have him.
> 
> > Neither does Sweden. My point is that if the UK *did* have him, and so
> > was in a position to extradite him to Sweden, the Yanks could ask the
> > UK for him directly without waiting for him to get to Sweden and then
> > asking the Swedes.
> 
> Not as easily. Assange is at least a citizen of the commonwealth,a nd as
> such extraditing him to the US would be tricky because he is a well
> known figure. Extraditing some nobody for 'hacking' is A-OK, but if the
> UK handed him directly to the US it would be a problem.

I assume you mean "citizen of a Commonwealth country" although that is
neither here nor there.

And by "asking for" I obviously meant "seek to extradite". His
notoriety or otherwise is also irrelevant.

I agree that the UK-US extradition situation is egregious ATM.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1192

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:19:15 +0000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

>In article <slrnlh7fv4.6aq.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
><g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <020320141307209311%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>>   Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnlh5q3b.h2.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
>> > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> 
>> >> In message <020320140021050749%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>> >>   Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> >> > In that case, you'd expect the US to be asking the UK to extradite him.
>> >> 
>> >> The UK doesn't have him.
>> 
>> > Neither does Sweden. My point is that if the UK *did* have him, and so
>> > was in a position to extradite him to Sweden, the Yanks could ask the
>> > UK for him directly without waiting for him to get to Sweden and then
>> > asking the Swedes.
>> 
>> Not as easily. Assange is at least a citizen of the commonwealth,a nd as
>> such extraditing him to the US would be tricky because he is a well
>> known figure. Extraditing some nobody for 'hacking' is A-OK, but if the
>> UK handed him directly to the US it would be a problem.
>
>I assume you mean "citizen of a Commonwealth country" although that is
>neither here nor there.

"Member states have no legal obligation one to another. Instead, they
are united by language, history, culture, and their shared values of
democracy, human rights, and the rule of law."

	Extraditing Assange would break the "human rights" clause.
Assange broke no English laws at all. And he certainly did not commit
treason. 
	Last country to be kicked out was Gambia, It broke the "human
rights" clause. How poetic if England was the next......

>
>And by "asking for" I obviously meant "seek to extradite". His
>notoriety or otherwise is also irrelevant.

	It is so relevant politically that it didn't happen. Proof of
the pudding et al.
>
>I agree that the UK-US extradition situation is egregious ATM.

	And always will be. Unless some kind of official dictatorship
is declared. Then human rights will no longer exist.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1194

In article <ii59h9l5lvmims7dg6m9hpi06v1thn0ps0@4ax.com>, Shadow
<Sh@dow.br> wrote:

> On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:19:15 +0000, Tim Streater
> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> Assange broke no English laws at all. And he certainly did not commit
> treason. 

But the Swedes allege he broke *Swedish* laws, and so he is subject to
the European Arrest Warrant because the Swedes asked for him.

I happen to think that the EAW is *also* egregious.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1200

On Monday 03 March 2014 16:22, Tim Streater conveyed the following to 
comp.misc...

> In article <ii59h9l5lvmims7dg6m9hpi06v1thn0ps0@4ax.com>, Shadow
> <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:19:15 +0000, Tim Streater
>> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> 
>> Assange broke no English laws at all. And he certainly did not commit
>> treason.
> 
> But the Swedes allege he broke *Swedish* laws, and so he is subject to
> the European Arrest Warrant because the Swedes asked for him.
> 
> I happen to think that the EAW is *also* egregious.

While I agree with what you wrote above, you can expect more egregious 
measures to arise within the EU within a short time.  The US is by now 
already a crypto-fascist nation [1] and the EU is set to follow that 
trend any day soon now.  More and more civil liberties are being 
curtailed in the EU as we speak, and there's a lot of "backroom 
diplomacy" going on as well, with secret committees [2] and whatever 
else have you.


[1] For the American Exceptionalists reading this and taking offense,
    please look up on the definitions of fascism and crypto-fascism,
    read up on what the Patriot Act is, and then look at the gratuitous
    and bluntly homicidal conduct by several police officers, who are
    then fully acquitted of all blame in a court of law.  (Hint: try the
    Kelly Thomas case.)

[2] It has recently been revealed - thanks to Slashdot - that a secret
    EU committee has decided that as of 2020(?), all new vehicles must
    be fitted with a backdoor which allows police officers to not only
    track the vehicle at all time, but also to disable the vehicle's
    engine on demand.  The way I see it, that's only a small step away
    from the forced inoculation of people with a microchip which allows
    them to be tracked all of the time and which the police can use to
    inflict incapacitating pain onto a suspect trying to get away.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1208

In article <lf2c86$t65$1@dont-email.me>, Aragorn
<thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:

> On Monday 03 March 2014 16:22, Tim Streater conveyed the following to 
> comp.misc...
> 
> > In article <ii59h9l5lvmims7dg6m9hpi06v1thn0ps0@4ax.com>, Shadow
> > <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:19:15 +0000, Tim Streater
> >> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> Assange broke no English laws at all. And he certainly did not commit
> >> treason.
> > 
> > But the Swedes allege he broke *Swedish* laws, and so he is subject to
> > the European Arrest Warrant because the Swedes asked for him.
> > 
> > I happen to think that the EAW is *also* egregious.
> 
> While I agree with what you wrote above, you can expect more egregious 
> measures to arise within the EU within a short time.  The US is by now 
> already a crypto-fascist nation [1] and the EU is set to follow that 
> trend any day soon now.

The irony here is that this, if true, is IMO driven by the fact the in
the US, judges and District Attorneys are elected. So they need to
worry about re-election. And the best way to do that is to appear to be
tough, and get convictions, never mind how.

We saw that a few years ago with some UK bankers extradited to the US.
First thing you find is that because they exercised their legal rights
to resist extradition, they get termed a flight risk in the US court -
so no bail (they did get it later). Of course, fighting a case when the
documents and witnesses are 3000 miles away is hard enough, but then
you find that they are warned by the judge that on conviction they
could get 40 years. So unsurprising then that they cop a plea and get
three years. High fives between the DA and the judge no doubt and roll
on the election.

-- 
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
 lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores 
 the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
 into it in the first place."                             - Douglas Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1198

On Monday 03 March 2014 11:19, Tim Streater conveyed the following to 
comp.misc...

> I agree that the UK-US extradition situation is egregious ATM.

Also note that it's a one-way street.  If the US wants to UK to 
extradite a suspect of crimes in or against the US, the UK will 
generally comply. [*]  

If on the other hand the UK wants the US to extradite a suspect for 
crimes in or against the UK, the US will generally refuse.  Never forget 
that... 

     "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
     -- George Orwell.


[*] There /is/ of course still that little issue with regard to
    the extradition of one Gary McKinnon, citizen of the UK, who
    "broke into" some (completely unsecured) computers at the Pentagon
    and NASA, looking for suppressed evidence of UFOs.  Tony Blair and
    Gordon Brown were willing to hand over McKinnon to the Americans
    on a silver platter, but then their successor David Cameron suddenly
    changed course.  Probably because of the consideration by US
    authorities that some of what McKinnon found out about wasn't
    suitable for disclosure to the public in a courtroom.  (The fact
    that those computers all had Microsoft Windows with a blank password
    for their Administrator account could possibly be one of those
    slightly embarrassing details, regardless of what else McKinnon
    found on those computers.)

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1207

In article <lf2bgs$p4c$1@dont-email.me>, Aragorn
<thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:

> On Monday 03 March 2014 11:19, Tim Streater conveyed the following to 
> comp.misc...
> 
> > I agree that the UK-US extradition situation is egregious ATM.
> 
> Also note that it's a one-way street.  If the US wants to UK to 
> extradite a suspect of crimes in or against the US, the UK will 
> generally comply. [*]  
> 
> If on the other hand the UK wants the US to extradite a suspect for 
> crimes in or against the UK, the US will generally refuse.  Never forget 
> that... 

I think the deal here is more the asymmetry involved. In the old days,
if a country wanted someone living in another country, they sought
extradition, and extradition was only granted by a court, at which
hearing the extraditing country had to present evidence to show that a
crime had been committed on its territory and that there was evidence
that the suspect had committed this crime.

I *think* (BICBW) that some countries only then allowed extradition
anyway, if the alleged crime was also a crime in their *own* country.

Now, this UK/US treaty agreed to by the charlatan Blair waived the
court hearing step altogether for the US wanting someone. But not in
the opposite direction.

-- 
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
 lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores 
 the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
 into it in the first place."                             - Douglas Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web