Autistic UK Hacker faces being shipped out to the US.

[barryween]

Ha ha what a moron. UFO's?

If your not going to contribute anything meaningful, don't contribute at all, please.

 

[barryween]

Ha ha what a moron. UFO's?

If your not going to contribute anything meaningful, don't contribute at all, please.

Does your post count as contributing? At least I gave an opinion and not a tired internet one-liner.

It was a post just to tell you to cut that shit out, so yeah, it was helping the topic filter out people with nothing to say. And UFO means Unidentified Flying Objects so technically, UFOs DO exist, he was looking for stuff on Alien spaceships. And I really doubt that aliens was the ONLY thing he looked at, even if he hacked to look at it, meaning he could have information someone could obtain by exploiting him.

 

[cobra_ky]

as far as i know, he didn't wipe any data and he certainly didn't apologize.

The Americans claimed that he had deleted files according to some of the news reports, and I'm pretty sure he apologised as soon as they caught him.

fair enough, i'm willing to concede the point.

finally, the american legal system does not include "beating the shit out of" people in any form.

Funny, Guatanamo Bay would seem to point the opposite way.

i meant the ACTUAL american legal system, not an illegal secret prison established by presidential fiat.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

i meant the ACTUAL american legal system, not an illegal secret prison established by presidential fiat.

According to both the UK and the US legal system, it's not included that prisoners are treated within the Human Rights agreement. We both could find many cases of that not happening.
The reason I brought the Bay up was that our friend Hilary Clinton has been trying to hide the truth about said place by forcing England to alter it's laws or they will withhold help in areas like extradition.

You can sort of see the hypocrisy?

 

[The_Night_Walker]

What are you talking about he has already lost his case and will be extradited within the month

 

[Elivercury]

even if he DOES have Asperger's syndrome he should know better.

I would like to point out words of fail here. People with apergers DON'T know better. It's not because they are stupid, but more because they don't think on the same level as people without aspergers. I myself have aspergers, and thankfully, i'm not a serious case and thus would be well aware hacking american security isn't a smart move. I have my oddities.. still do, unaware that they are odd. I've overcome a number of wierd childhood habits through age and experience.

However, the serious cases aren't so lucky, and their inhibitions take longer to adapt to todays society. It's a spectrum disorder, with many varying cases. This just happens to be an extreme case.

I with gaycakes here. The americans should consider themselves lucky that it wasn't someone with malicious intent, and should learn from this, that their super secure system has a few flaws if ONE man can hack it. Fix the damn system, and have the guy get help. People that out of sync with society need help from someone else.

Okay, i get what you mean, but unless there have been updates, I would still like to stress, WE DON'T KNOW HE DIDN'T HAVE OTHER INTENTIONS! Has he taken a lie detector test yet? Just because he has asperger's doesn't mean he drank some truth serum that makes it so he can tell no lie. It doesn't matter if he has asperger's or not, the law is the law and HE, just like anyone else, has to follow it and there have been many other people who have lied about the full extent of their crimes. He maybe no different. 60 years is too much but it is doubtful we as Americans are SO evil as to give him the full 60. He did something wrong towards AMERICANS so AMERICANS need to teach him that's wrong and he needs to be punished for his ill actions.

You say that, but it sounds like he had pretty severe aspergers syndrome, and have you ever seen someone with severe aspergers syndrome try to lie? It's not very effective and rather comical i promise.

And i'm a bit on the fence on this one. I believe he should definitely be punished, as he committed a crime, and people with aspergers syndrome tend to get an idea of right and wrong earlier than most people, not "never develop it". So i believe he knew what he was doing is wrong. However at the same time, i think he was well and truly obsessed, and some sort of compromise sentence like "he's never allowed near a computer again" would be sufficient, and that prison isn't required.

On where he should be trialed, i'm also undecided.

 

[tsb247]

He should be extradited. Despite his location when the crime was committed, he still commited a crime against the U.S. government (knowingly or unknowingly).

If he isn't extradited and a British citizen is ever in the same situation, then I imagine the U.S. will simply say, "Well, you didn't give us the hacker, so we won't give you this guy."

His sentence probably won't be as bad as 60 years, and he would probably paroll (or have his sentence shortened for helping to fix the security holes in the U.S. servers).

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I'm finding that far too many people in this topic are assuming that he is guaranteed to get 60 years, rather than 60 years being the maximum sentence and, due to the relatively low damage of his work and his condition, very unlikely to happen.

As for the people saying that he should be tried in the U.K, why? He may have been in the U.K., but the servers he hacked were on U.S. soil. Here's an example. Say a man in Canada wants to rob a bank, so he hires some goons to go to America, rob a bank there, and return. Now, if he was arrested for conspiracy to commit a crime, should he be tried in Canada or the U.S.?

 

[tsb247]

"Hey, US Government? Here's my middle finger."

He committed a crime in Britain, as a British citizen, as such he should be tried in Britain, as a British citizen

Exactly, it wasn't on U.S. soil, therefore it is not a crime of their concern.

But the servers he infiltrated were on U.S. soil. Therefore, the crime did occur on U.S. soil. He effectively reached out across the ocean and rearranged/deleted files that existed on (government) servers that were sitting firmly on American soil (probably bolted to the ground). How was the crime not committed on American soil? It doesn't matter where he was sitting - he infiltrated U.S. government property that is located in the continental U.S. If an American did this to the U.K. you would probably expect the same thing.

Besides, the U.S. also has the right to question him about exactly what he saw since he broke into our secure servers.

 

[Lord George]

Just looking over the extradition treaty between the UK and the US and it's incredibly one sided, the USA can demand a UK citizen be extradited without proof but for a USA citizen to be extradited to the UK there must be evidence and it must satisfy "the probable cause" requirements. Likely the reason our government's never demanded a number of former IRA terrorists to be moved over here to face trial. My god our government sucks.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm

 

[tsb247]

I'm finding that far too many people in this topic are assuming that he is guaranteed to get 60 years, rather than 60 years being the maximum sentence and, due to the relatively low damage of his work and his condition, very unlikely to happen.

As for the people saying that he should be tried in the U.K, why? He may have been in the U.K., but the servers he hacked were on U.S. soil. Here's an example. Say a man in Canada wants to rob a bank, so he hires some goons to go to America, rob a bank there, and return. Now, if he was arrested for conspiracy to commit a crime, should he be tried in Canada or the U.S.?

Theoretically, both governments would want to take a crack at him. The U.S. would charge him with conspiracy to commit a crime (and probably a host of other charges), and Canada would probably hit him with similar charges (if they can prove it - extradition or not). The man that organized the robbery would most likely be pretty screwed.

However, to directly answer your question, the U.S. would request extradition on conspiracy charges since he organized a robbery that took place on American soil and directly affected American citizens.

 

[barryween]

even if he DOES have Asperger's syndrome he should know better.

I would like to point out words of fail here. People with apergers DON'T know better. It's not because they are stupid, but more because they don't think on the same level as people without aspergers. I myself have aspergers, and thankfully, i'm not a serious case and thus would be well aware hacking american security isn't a smart move. I have my oddities.. still do, unaware that they are odd. I've overcome a number of wierd childhood habits through age and experience.

However, the serious cases aren't so lucky, and their inhibitions take longer to adapt to todays society. It's a spectrum disorder, with many varying cases. This just happens to be an extreme case.

I with gaycakes here. The americans should consider themselves lucky that it wasn't someone with malicious intent, and should learn from this, that their super secure system has a few flaws if ONE man can hack it. Fix the damn system, and have the guy get help. People that out of sync with society need help from someone else.

Okay, i get what you mean, but unless there have been updates, I would still like to stress, WE DON'T KNOW HE DIDN'T HAVE OTHER INTENTIONS! Has he taken a lie detector test yet? Just because he has asperger's doesn't mean he drank some truth serum that makes it so he can tell no lie. It doesn't matter if he has asperger's or not, the law is the law and HE, just like anyone else, has to follow it and there have been many other people who have lied about the full extent of their crimes. He maybe no different. 60 years is too much but it is doubtful we as Americans are SO evil as to give him the full 60. He did something wrong towards AMERICANS so AMERICANS need to teach him that's wrong and he needs to be punished for his ill actions.

You say that, but it sounds like he had pretty severe aspergers syndrome, and have you ever seen someone with severe aspergers syndrome try to lie? It's not very effective and rather comical i promise.

And i'm a bit on the fence on this one. I believe he should definitely be punished, as he committed a crime, and people with aspergers syndrome tend to get an idea of right and wrong earlier than most people, not "never develop it". So i believe he knew what he was doing is wrong. However at the same time, i think he was well and truly obsessed, and some sort of compromise sentence like "he's never allowed near a computer again" would be sufficient, and that prison isn't required.

On where he should be trialed, i'm also undecided.

Maybe a few years on parole and severe limitations on computer use?

 

[tsb247]

Just looking over the extradition treaty between the UK and the US and it's incredibly one sided, the USA can demand a UK citizen be extradited without proof but for a USA citizen to be extradited to the UK there must be evidence and it must satisfy "the probable cause" requirements. Likely the reason our government's never demanded a number of former IRA terrorists to be moved over here to face trial. My god our government sucks.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm

That probably has to do with the way each nation's justice system works. I'm betting that each nation has different rules and they want to ensure that citizens are governed as closely to its respective rules as possible.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

I'm finding that far too many people in this topic are assuming that he is guaranteed to get 60 years, rather than 60 years being the maximum sentence and, due to the relatively low damage of his work and his condition, very unlikely to happen.

As for the people saying that he should be tried in the U.K, why? He may have been in the U.K., but the servers he hacked were on U.S. soil. Here's an example. Say a man in Canada wants to rob a bank, so he hires some goons to go to America, rob a bank there, and return. Now, if he was arrested for conspiracy to commit a crime, should he be tried in Canada or the U.S.?

Theoretically, both governments would want to take a crack at him. The U.S. would charge him with conspiracy to commit a crime (and probably a host of other charges), and Canada would probably hit him with similar charges (if they can prove it - extradition or not). The man that organized the robbery would most likely be pretty screwed.

However, to directly answer your question, the U.S. would request extradition on conspiracy charges since he organized a robbery that took place on American soil and directly affected American citizens.

That's exactly my point. This guy hacked into government servers on U.S. soil. Isn't that also organizing (well, as much as hacking a computer is organizing) a crime that takes place in the U.S., even if he's in Britain?

 

[Elivercury]

Aye sure. I mean, it's not like he hurt anyone or tried to. He arguably did nothing malicious, he was just stupid enough to leave a hole big enough for anyone who is malicious to get a double decker bus through. However at the same time he shouldn't get off scot free, he'd just do the same thing again only this time it might cause some serious damage.

 

[Lord George]

Just looking over the extradition treaty between the UK and the US and it's incredibly one sided, the USA can demand a UK citizen be extradited without proof but for a USA citizen to be extradited to the UK there must be evidence and it must satisfy "the probable cause" requirements. Likely the reason our government's never demanded a number of former IRA terrorists to be moved over here to face trial. My god our government sucks.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm

That probably has to do with the way each nation's justice system works. I'm betting that each nation has different rules and they want to ensure that citizens are governed as closely to its respective rules as possible.

What rules, the treaty basically says the American government can order the UK to give them whoever they want with no evidence, but the UK government must provide evidence if they want the same thing from the US, its just the American government abusing its power over our spineless government to get them to do whatever they want.

 

[tsb247]

I'm finding that far too many people in this topic are assuming that he is guaranteed to get 60 years, rather than 60 years being the maximum sentence and, due to the relatively low damage of his work and his condition, very unlikely to happen.

As for the people saying that he should be tried in the U.K, why? He may have been in the U.K., but the servers he hacked were on U.S. soil. Here's an example. Say a man in Canada wants to rob a bank, so he hires some goons to go to America, rob a bank there, and return. Now, if he was arrested for conspiracy to commit a crime, should he be tried in Canada or the U.S.?

Theoretically, both governments would want to take a crack at him. The U.S. would charge him with conspiracy to commit a crime (and probably a host of other charges), and Canada would probably hit him with similar charges (if they can prove it - extradition or not). The man that organized the robbery would most likely be pretty screwed.

However, to directly answer your question, the U.S. would request extradition on conspiracy charges since he organized a robbery that took place on American soil and directly affected American citizens.

That's exactly my point. This guy hacked into government servers on U.S. soil. Isn't that also organizing (well, as much as hacking a computer is organizing) a crime that takes place in the U.S., even if he's in Britain?

Yes, he is guilty of committing a crime in the U.S.

I believe you and I are arguing the same point.

 

[tsb247]

Just looking over the extradition treaty between the UK and the US and it's incredibly one sided, the USA can demand a UK citizen be extradited without proof but for a USA citizen to be extradited to the UK there must be evidence and it must satisfy "the probable cause" requirements. Likely the reason our government's never demanded a number of former IRA terrorists to be moved over here to face trial. My god our government sucks.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm

That probably has to do with the way each nation's justice system works. I'm betting that each nation has different rules and they want to ensure that citizens are governed as closely to its respective rules as possible.

What rules, the treaty basically says the American government can order the UK to give them whoever they want with no evidence, but the UK government must provide evidence if they want the same thing from the US, its just the American government abusing its power over our spineless government to get them to do whatever they want.

That could be, but the U.K. agreed to it (for whatever reason).

However, my rationale is based on the fact that in the U.S., there must be probable cause for anyone to be searched, arrested, charged, etc. (I have never once seen the patriot act invoked). I do not know the laws in Britain however, so I cannot say if the same is true. The U.S. tends to treat everyone on U.S. soil as a citizen (and I'm not a fan of that myself considering how many people are here illegally, but that's a different matter).

 

[The Hairminator]

60 years? That's like 4 brutal murders where I live. I think that's just wrong.

 

[A random person]

Even with Aspergers, he knew he was breaking the law and therefore should be treated as the criminal he is.
He should be given to the US as frankly the UK judicial system is nothing short of a joke.

Hah, and you think the US is any better? Please.

well the guy needs to be tried in America

Why? Is killing an American during a mugging on British soil also worthy of extradition as it's "attacking America"?

Please? Liberal much?
Try looking at the facts. British sentences are ridiculously short. In the UK, a life sentence can mean only 15 years, whereas in the US it is usually a minimum of 25 years. Not to mention, the dole completely removes any deterrent of going to prison.
He should go to the US to be tried as he will actually get a fitting punishment rather than a light slap on the back of the hand, if not a complete trial dismissal in this country due to over crowded prisons.

On the contrary, I'd think 15 years for someone who had no malice would be fine, if not a bit excessive. Hell, I hate this whole notion of a "fitting punishment" since it ignores the one purpose of punishment: deterrence. Punishing for any other reason than that is merely for some bullshit notion of justice.

As for your question that was actually directed at Amnestic, yes, I am a liberal and proud of it. I do not believe in traditional values of authority or that notion of "fitting punishment." To me they are just arbitrary crap.

How can you justify breaking the law in this situation? Just because he didn't break anything doesn't mean he couldn't have, even accidentally. You don't let a well trained bull into a china shop for the simple reason of just in case the sh*t does hit the fan.
You hate the notion of "fitting punishment?" Erm right...So you think it'd be okay to rape a bunch of school children and spend 2 days in prison. If you really don't believe in serving fitting punishments, maybe you should come out of your nice teen cotton-candy world and have something bad happen to you, and then try and feel warm and dandy when the perpetrator gets off scott-free.
It's been proven, deterrents don't work. Over 50% of prisoners re-ofend. Want to know why such a ludicrous percent reoffend?
Because of liberals who are too afraid to make a hard choice and instead laughbly believe that everyone is equal and good deep down inside. E.g. Here is liberalism in action:
I'm a 20 year old thug who beats people up for fun on nights out. I dropped out of school when I was 16 and have been living on benefits. I see a guy I particularly despise because he has a nice car. So I hospitalise him. I get sentenced to 3 years in prison where I get to play on PS3's and meet my friends. When I am released, I carry on with my life the exact same way prior to prison.
That' just a made up example, based on people I know of. I can give more involving pregnancy etc. In the UK, prison is only a deterrent to people with moral standards and goals. So basically, it's not a deterrent to criminals.
Proud of being liberal? The only thing liberalism ever achieved was WW2.

First of all, about how I'd feel if something bad happened to me. Yes, I may feel hate for that criminal, but that's just a feeling, and the only reason I wouldn't want him off scott-free is anger, bloodlust and desire for revenge. Those feelings of wanting retribution are terrible reasons for punishment, only to fulfill selfish desires like bloodlust. As for that example of raping school children, in reality yes you'd need far stronger punishments for that, and I'd say no amount of prison alone is going to help with that, but if somehow 2 days were enough for him to not repeat it (theoretical, and yes, absurd situation. Just illustrating a point) that's what I'd sentence him to. Why? Because, as I mentioned above, punishing for the sake of wanting them to suffer is stupid. If they don't do it again, you did your job. Anything more is for some stupid moral bullshit, no matter how much you try to justify it with how "heinous" the crime was. So to sum it up: your point on fitting punishment is based on a stupid notion: that you want the criminal to suffer for what they did.

Of course, that above thing is theoretical (just about the "fitting punishment" thing) and yes, a lot of people after getting out of prison do commit crimes again regardless of deterrence. It's not us goddamn liberals softening things, it's because, as you said, prison's only a deterrent to people with goals and moral standards, and not just in the UK. Yes, that example you gave about beating someone up, having a soft 3 year sentence, and beating people up again didn't have the prisons do enough. Why? Because you did it again. So yes, perhaps the prison should have given you a longer sentence for the valid reason of preventing you from doing it again. Or, since you bought up a good point of prison not being a deterrent on thugs like (hypothetical) you (and this isn't only the UK, this is in general), maybe something like giving you said goals would help. You'd have those goals, prison would be a deterrent, and you might go on to live a somewhat less crappy life.

And for that thing about people not being good, maybe so, but no one's just a through-and-through comic book thug either. The notion that someone is just simply evil is at least as stupid and laughable as the notion of them being good.

Spoiler: Oh, and liberalism only caused WW2? This spoiler tag has something to say to that.