5 ms·

Petition to stop extradition of UK hacker

153 points by sparknlaunch 14y ago

ColinWright 14y ago
Interview with Richard O'Dwyer here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155627 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155627 Jimmy Wales supports the case: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155689 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155689
duiker101 14y ago
This is literally unbelievable. I was shocked when the US attacked Kim Dotcom, but you know... he is a big fish and anyway i hope he will be able to fight back. But this is gone too much further. They are trying to rule the world in this way. This people gained too much power. I am really frightened for our future.
- gouranga 14y ago
  > This people gained too much power. I am really frightened for our future. Agreed entirely. Unfortunately, as history likes to remind us, the only way to resolve these issues is legitimate bloody and violent rebellion. Unfortunately there are too many morons staggering in the dark and too many weapons in the hands of the powerful for this to work any more. However as the balance of power changes, people have nothing to loose at which point TSHTF. I'm not promoting this btw - I'd rather it was resolve civilly.
  - nodata 14y ago
    > as history likes to remind us, the only way to resolve these issues is legitimate bloody and violent rebellion. I don't like this statement. It removes the thinking behind what a better, non-bloody, non-violent alternative could be.
    - gouranga 14y ago
      Sorry but you are too much of an idealist and nowhere near a realist. a) You have to work with the rest of society which doesn't have the same moral standard as you (or me). Consider the London riots. b) You would be killed without them so much as blinking. Consider Afghanistan civilian drone attacks and the lack of accountability around it and the rapier missiles sitting on top of council blocks just for the olympics and 10k troops stationed at Grenwich barracks. I'd like it to be that way but it's just not realistic. Hmm...
      - ajuc 14y ago
        Somehow people protested all over Europe againist ACTA, and governments backed off, and nobody got killed by predator drones or otherwise. Governments and publishers want to censor internet, but we're not yet at the point of no return, we can still fight them with demonstrations and petitions and watching their hands. And that's what we should be doing.
        gouranga 14y ago
        That's ACTA, which is a trivial distraction from extraditions at the moment. Its a pacifier rather than a major policy change.
  - nuaccnt 14y ago
    Yes! / to crush the tyranny / let's find ourself a new Robespierre / a Lenin / a Mao / I mean / what could possibly go wrong?
    - gouranga 14y ago
      I'm not suggesting that. The balance of power should remain in the hands of the citizens, not the government. Have people forgotten that government is centralized servitude, not centralised control.
    - raverbashing 14y ago
      Yes, what beats bullies are usually bigger bullies It's a complicated gamble
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 14y ago
    As a Portuguese, our history does certainly not show that: The Carnation Revolution (...) was a military coup started on 25 April 1974, in Lisbon, Portugal, coupled with an unanticipated and extensive campaign of civil resistance. The Portuguese celebrate Freedom Day on 25 April every year, and the day is a national holiday in Portugal. The name "Carnation Revolution" comes from the fact no shots were fired and when the population started descending the streets to celebrate the end of the dictatorship and war in the colonies, carnation flowers were put on the guns' ends and on the uniforms. These events effectively changed the Portuguese regime from an authoritarian dictatorship (the Estado Novo, or "New State") into a democracy, and produced enormous social, economic, territorial, demographic, and political changes in the country (...) Although the regime's political police, PIDE, killed four people before surrendering, the revolution was unusual in that the revolutionaries did not use direct violence to achieve their goals. Holding red carnations (cravos in Portuguese), many people joined revolutionary soldiers on the streets of Lisbon, in apparent joy and audible euphoria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution
benhalllondon 14y ago
Just one fact/opinion to add that is always missed out on the petitions etc: "The case was brought by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which claims that the TVShack.net website earned more than $230,000 (£147,000) in advertising revenue before US authorities obtained a warrant and seized the domain name in June 2010." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-18266805 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-1826680... The guy was earning heaps of money.
- rcgs 14y ago
  So does Google. Your point?
  - vladd 14y ago
    Google has a registered DMCA agent, includes a DMCA dashboard ( https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dmca-dashboard?hl=en https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dmca-dashboard?hl=en ) and replies to take-down requests. I imagine good faith applies in Google's case and they are protected by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_%28law%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_%28law%29 .
    - duiker101 14y ago
      From the message of the petition it appears that also him complied with take-down requests. Let's say the truth that we all know... Google, is google, they cannot go against it because it's too big, it's easier to bully with someone smaller than you.
      - vladd 14y ago
        I don't know if you're from US, but that's not how things work: don't get me wrong, there's a lot of bullshit in the US regarding SOPA, how laws are made, how lobbying works, but legal-wise, the more money you have, more of a target you are, so if Google were to do illegal things per US legislation, they would be sued even faster than this kid. I suspect the main difference in Google versus a specifically-made torrents search engine is the good faith criteria that would apply to Google. Also, it's not enough to reply to take-down requests in order to plea safe harbor protection, you actually need to have a registered agent and pay the registration fee (around $100).
Zenst 14y ago
This approach has been tried in the past and been ignored sadly. How about the approach of: Whoever runs the DNS aided and abeted the alledged crime. Google is just as guilty by this precedence being set. Sure there are many other overlooked angles, but given the facts i'd say the media industry needs a dressing down and told they are not the law.
- rlpb 14y ago
  > Whoever runs the DNS aided and abeted the alledged crime. Google is just as guilty by this precedence being set. This would never stand in criminal law. Criminal law cares about intent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
- okamiueru 14y ago
  > Google is just as guilty by this precedence being set. I beg to differ. Google might be guilty of this, since google has business in the US. However, as far as I understand, this wasn't illegal in the UK, and as a UK citizen, running a server in the UK, you have to be able to feel safe from prosecution, as long as you follow the laws in your country. So, I'd say, if anything, google might be guilty, this guy isn't... well, unless you claim that he is guilty according to US laws, but that's just plain silly. What if I had to be extradited to a different country, where being an atheist is considered a crime?
  - Zenst 14y ago
    beg all you like but I see no difference between Google offer a search engine that points to content, same as this chap did with torrent links. That is the comparision.
    - mryan 14y ago
      There is a difference, even if you are unable see it. Consider this: Is linking to copyrighted material Google's sole purpose? Was linking to copyrighted material the sole purpose of TVShack? The intent of the person behind the site is clearly important here. Intent is definitely taken in to consideration in cases such as this. Just for the record, I don't think he should be extradited to the US over this. But I do think his intention was to make money from adverts that were posted next to copyrighted material. Is that a crime in the UK? I don't know, but it is a question that should be answered by the UK courts.
smutticus 14y ago
If I host content in the United States that is illegal in Iran does that mean I can be extradited to Iran to face charges? I hope this kid fights this tooth and nail with good lawyers. He needs good representation as this case has potential to set very important precedents surrounding basic issues of sovereignty and jurisdictional precedence. Is the US government going to argue that physical location is irrelevant on the internet? Does a crime committed on the internet happen simultaneously in every country? I'm really curious how the US government will present their arguments in this case. And equally curious how much the UK is willing to lose its right of sovereignty.
- rplnt 14y ago
  Isn't the case over? I thought the extradition trial ended months ago.
- planetguy 14y ago
  No, because there's no extradition treaty between the US and Iran. Extradition treaties only get set up between countries with a reasonable sort of trust in the fairness of each others' legal systems. Extradition between the UK and US is usually pretty easy, except in cases where the defendant is likely to face the death penalty in the US; the UK currently has an issue with this.
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  That depends if the USA was foolish enough to sign such and agreement with Iran. Extraditions are basically quid pro quo contracts between nations. We signed a doozy. The UK signed an extradition agreement a few years back, basically saying we (UK) will allow the US to extradite for crimes that are only crimes in the USA. And we get no reciprocity. Oh, and we need to prove your murders committed crimes to a much higher standard of proof than the other way round. It is a controversial measure - to be honest more controverisal for the 'just what photos of the prime minster and cabinet did the CIA really have?' as opposed to any shock that the UK government failed once again to stand up for itself. No, not bitter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
citricsquid 14y ago
I'm signing the petition because I don't believe he should be extradited, however it's quite clear that he broke the law and was profiting from his crimes. I hope this petition is only against extradition and he will still be charged here in the UK.
- tankenmate 14y ago
  Which law exactly was he breaking? And how did you determine that it is quite clear?
  - citricsquid 14y ago
    From a news story: > The case was brought by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which claims that the TVShack.net website earned more than $230,000 (£147,000) in advertising revenue before US authorities obtained a warrant and seized the domain name in June 2010. I have been unable to find any evidence that he has denied this claim, so I am assuming that what the ICE claimed is accurate. TVShack.net (and TVShack.cc) were very high traffic websites (top 1000 at their highest according to Alexa) and based on my own knowledge of advertising revenues at such volumes of traffic the suggestion that he earned >$200,000 is one that I don't have a hard time believing. Specific to whether or not he committed a crime, a UK Judge has said he did: > during O'Dwyer's extradition hearing, it was held by the Judge that the offences alleged were also illegal under UK law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ODwyer#US_and_UK_copyright_offences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ODwyer#US_and_UK_copyri...
    - rcgs 14y ago
      Earning money via advertising is not a crime. Google does this. Annoyingly, O'Dwyer's wikipedia article is scant for information on UK charges & the reasons for extradition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ODwyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ODwyer. If anything, it is quite unclear which UK laws he has broken.
      - joeblau 14y ago
dancesdrunk 14y ago
Off topic but how is it more beneficial to add your name to the change.org petition vs the e-petition service offered by the White House (https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions) / Her Majesty's Government (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/)? From what I understand the "official" ones at least guarantee your petition to be discussed by those in power once a certain threshold is crossed.
Zenst 14y ago
Why is a USA person (Mr Wales) petitioning a UK goverment about a action that is instigated and being carried out by a USA goverment. THIS makes no sence. It is like complaining to my local GP about starving children in africa! If you think it is wrong about him being extradited then take it up with those extraditing him and those who have brought these actions into being. Shout all you like to the UK goverment but all they can do is point at the USA and go talk to the hand, sadly. So personaly I see this is a futil petition that is because it is targeted at the wrong people.
- viggity 14y ago
  Perhaps it is because the UK is ultimately responsible for deciding whether or not to extradite.
veeti 14y ago
So why does this petition need my street address, postal code and country?
- dtbx 14y ago
  To help the FBI track you. I support Richard O'Dwyer, but I'm concerned about my own anonymity. These people are crazy, i'm not signing this petition.
- Cushman 14y ago
  Because it's a petition, not an online poll. Because petitioner signatures are given to the petitionee, and should represent real people, not faceless internet folk. If you're not willing to publicly support the cause, you clearly should not sign it. (Although you can choose not to have your name listed on the front-facing site.)
- rwallace 14y ago
  Perhaps so that if there's a dispute about whether the signatures are genuine, a random sample can be verified to prove it. Have you ever wondered whether you would have had the courage to join the protesters for freedom, had you lived in 1940s India, 1980s Russia or 1990s South Africa? I like to think I would, but who can say for sure; it must've taken courage far beyond anything being asked of us here and now. But we can at least do what is asked of us.
usablebytes 14y ago
This is sad. He may be guilty or may not be because of his act. But him being extradited to US is definitely not making sense.

153 points by sparknlaunch 14y ago

Interview with Richard O'Dwyer here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155627 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155627 Jimmy Wales supports the case: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155689 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155689

duiker101 14y ago

This is literally unbelievable. I was shocked when the US attacked Kim Dotcom, but you know... he is a big fish and anyway i hope he will be able to fight back. But this is gone too much further. They are trying to rule the world in this way. This people gained too much power. I am really frightened for our future.

gouranga 14y ago
> This people gained too much power. I am really frightened for our future. Agreed entirely. Unfortunately, as history likes to remind us, the only way to resolve these issues is legitimate bloody and violent rebellion. Unfortunately there are too many morons staggering in the dark and too many weapons in the hands of the powerful for this to work any more. However as the balance of power changes, people have nothing to loose at which point TSHTF. I'm not promoting this btw - I'd rather it was resolve civilly.
- nodata 14y ago
  > as history likes to remind us, the only way to resolve these issues is legitimate bloody and violent rebellion. I don't like this statement. It removes the thinking behind what a better, non-bloody, non-violent alternative could be.
  - gouranga 14y ago
    Sorry but you are too much of an idealist and nowhere near a realist. a) You have to work with the rest of society which doesn't have the same moral standard as you (or me). Consider the London riots. b) You would be killed without them so much as blinking. Consider Afghanistan civilian drone attacks and the lack of accountability around it and the rapier missiles sitting on top of council blocks just for the olympics and 10k troops stationed at Grenwich barracks. I'd like it to be that way but it's just not realistic. Hmm...
    - ajuc 14y ago
      Somehow people protested all over Europe againist ACTA, and governments backed off, and nobody got killed by predator drones or otherwise. Governments and publishers want to censor internet, but we're not yet at the point of no return, we can still fight them with demonstrations and petitions and watching their hands. And that's what we should be doing.
      - gouranga 14y ago
        That's ACTA, which is a trivial distraction from extraditions at the moment. Its a pacifier rather than a major policy change.
- nuaccnt 14y ago
  Yes! / to crush the tyranny / let's find ourself a new Robespierre / a Lenin / a Mao / I mean / what could possibly go wrong?
  - gouranga 14y ago
    I'm not suggesting that. The balance of power should remain in the hands of the citizens, not the government. Have people forgotten that government is centralized servitude, not centralised control.
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    Yes, what beats bullies are usually bigger bullies It's a complicated gamble
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 14y ago
  As a Portuguese, our history does certainly not show that: The Carnation Revolution (...) was a military coup started on 25 April 1974, in Lisbon, Portugal, coupled with an unanticipated and extensive campaign of civil resistance. The Portuguese celebrate Freedom Day on 25 April every year, and the day is a national holiday in Portugal. The name "Carnation Revolution" comes from the fact no shots were fired and when the population started descending the streets to celebrate the end of the dictatorship and war in the colonies, carnation flowers were put on the guns' ends and on the uniforms. These events effectively changed the Portuguese regime from an authoritarian dictatorship (the Estado Novo, or "New State") into a democracy, and produced enormous social, economic, territorial, demographic, and political changes in the country (...) Although the regime's political police, PIDE, killed four people before surrendering, the revolution was unusual in that the revolutionaries did not use direct violence to achieve their goals. Holding red carnations (cravos in Portuguese), many people joined revolutionary soldiers on the streets of Lisbon, in apparent joy and audible euphoria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution

benhalllondon 14y ago

Just one fact/opinion to add that is always missed out on the petitions etc: "The case was brought by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which claims that the TVShack.net website earned more than $230,000 (£147,000) in advertising revenue before US authorities obtained a warrant and seized the domain name in June 2010." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-18266805 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-1826680... The guy was earning heaps of money.

rcgs 14y ago
So does Google. Your point?
- vladd 14y ago
  Google has a registered DMCA agent, includes a DMCA dashboard ( https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dmca-dashboard?hl=en https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dmca-dashboard?hl=en ) and replies to take-down requests. I imagine good faith applies in Google's case and they are protected by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_%28law%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor_%28law%29 .
  - duiker101 14y ago
    From the message of the petition it appears that also him complied with take-down requests. Let's say the truth that we all know... Google, is google, they cannot go against it because it's too big, it's easier to bully with someone smaller than you.
    - vladd 14y ago
      I don't know if you're from US, but that's not how things work: don't get me wrong, there's a lot of bullshit in the US regarding SOPA, how laws are made, how lobbying works, but legal-wise, the more money you have, more of a target you are, so if Google were to do illegal things per US legislation, they would be sued even faster than this kid. I suspect the main difference in Google versus a specifically-made torrents search engine is the good faith criteria that would apply to Google. Also, it's not enough to reply to take-down requests in order to plea safe harbor protection, you actually need to have a registered agent and pay the registration fee (around $100).

Zenst 14y ago

This approach has been tried in the past and been ignored sadly. How about the approach of: Whoever runs the DNS aided and abeted the alledged crime. Google is just as guilty by this precedence being set. Sure there are many other overlooked angles, but given the facts i'd say the media industry needs a dressing down and told they are not the law.

rlpb 14y ago
> Whoever runs the DNS aided and abeted the alledged crime. Google is just as guilty by this precedence being set. This would never stand in criminal law. Criminal law cares about intent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea
okamiueru 14y ago
> Google is just as guilty by this precedence being set. I beg to differ. Google might be guilty of this, since google has business in the US. However, as far as I understand, this wasn't illegal in the UK, and as a UK citizen, running a server in the UK, you have to be able to feel safe from prosecution, as long as you follow the laws in your country. So, I'd say, if anything, google might be guilty, this guy isn't... well, unless you claim that he is guilty according to US laws, but that's just plain silly. What if I had to be extradited to a different country, where being an atheist is considered a crime?
- Zenst 14y ago
  beg all you like but I see no difference between Google offer a search engine that points to content, same as this chap did with torrent links. That is the comparision.
  - mryan 14y ago
    There is a difference, even if you are unable see it. Consider this: Is linking to copyrighted material Google's sole purpose? Was linking to copyrighted material the sole purpose of TVShack? The intent of the person behind the site is clearly important here. Intent is definitely taken in to consideration in cases such as this. Just for the record, I don't think he should be extradited to the US over this. But I do think his intention was to make money from adverts that were posted next to copyrighted material. Is that a crime in the UK? I don't know, but it is a question that should be answered by the UK courts.

smutticus 14y ago

If I host content in the United States that is illegal in Iran does that mean I can be extradited to Iran to face charges? I hope this kid fights this tooth and nail with good lawyers. He needs good representation as this case has potential to set very important precedents surrounding basic issues of sovereignty and jurisdictional precedence. Is the US government going to argue that physical location is irrelevant on the internet? Does a crime committed on the internet happen simultaneously in every country? I'm really curious how the US government will present their arguments in this case. And equally curious how much the UK is willing to lose its right of sovereignty.

rplnt 14y ago
Isn't the case over? I thought the extradition trial ended months ago.
planetguy 14y ago
No, because there's no extradition treaty between the US and Iran. Extradition treaties only get set up between countries with a reasonable sort of trust in the fairness of each others' legal systems. Extradition between the UK and US is usually pretty easy, except in cases where the defendant is likely to face the death penalty in the US; the UK currently has an issue with this.
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
That depends if the USA was foolish enough to sign such and agreement with Iran. Extraditions are basically quid pro quo contracts between nations. We signed a doozy. The UK signed an extradition agreement a few years back, basically saying we (UK) will allow the US to extradite for crimes that are only crimes in the USA. And we get no reciprocity. Oh, and we need to prove your murders committed crimes to a much higher standard of proof than the other way round. It is a controversial measure - to be honest more controverisal for the 'just what photos of the prime minster and cabinet did the CIA really have?' as opposed to any shock that the UK government failed once again to stand up for itself. No, not bitter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003

citricsquid 14y ago

I'm signing the petition because I don't believe he should be extradited, however it's quite clear that he broke the law and was profiting from his crimes. I hope this petition is only against extradition and he will still be charged here in the UK.

tankenmate 14y ago
Which law exactly was he breaking? And how did you determine that it is quite clear?
- citricsquid 14y ago
  From a news story: > The case was brought by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which claims that the TVShack.net website earned more than $230,000 (£147,000) in advertising revenue before US authorities obtained a warrant and seized the domain name in June 2010. I have been unable to find any evidence that he has denied this claim, so I am assuming that what the ICE claimed is accurate. TVShack.net (and TVShack.cc) were very high traffic websites (top 1000 at their highest according to Alexa) and based on my own knowledge of advertising revenues at such volumes of traffic the suggestion that he earned >$200,000 is one that I don't have a hard time believing. Specific to whether or not he committed a crime, a UK Judge has said he did: > during O'Dwyer's extradition hearing, it was held by the Judge that the offences alleged were also illegal under UK law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ODwyer#US_and_UK_copyright_offences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ODwyer#US_and_UK_copyri...
  - rcgs 14y ago
    Earning money via advertising is not a crime. Google does this. Annoyingly, O'Dwyer's wikipedia article is scant for information on UK charges & the reasons for extradition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ODwyer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ODwyer. If anything, it is quite unclear which UK laws he has broken.
    - joeblau 14y ago

dancesdrunk 14y ago

Off topic but how is it more beneficial to add your name to the change.org petition vs the e-petition service offered by the White House (https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions) / Her Majesty's Government (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/ http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/)? From what I understand the "official" ones at least guarantee your petition to be discussed by those in power once a certain threshold is crossed.

Zenst 14y ago

Why is a USA person (Mr Wales) petitioning a UK goverment about a action that is instigated and being carried out by a USA goverment. THIS makes no sence. It is like complaining to my local GP about starving children in africa! If you think it is wrong about him being extradited then take it up with those extraditing him and those who have brought these actions into being. Shout all you like to the UK goverment but all they can do is point at the USA and go talk to the hand, sadly. So personaly I see this is a futil petition that is because it is targeted at the wrong people.

viggity 14y ago
Perhaps it is because the UK is ultimately responsible for deciding whether or not to extradite.

veeti 14y ago

So why does this petition need my street address, postal code and country?

dtbx 14y ago
To help the FBI track you. I support Richard O'Dwyer, but I'm concerned about my own anonymity. These people are crazy, i'm not signing this petition.
Cushman 14y ago
Because it's a petition, not an online poll. Because petitioner signatures are given to the petitionee, and should represent real people, not faceless internet folk. If you're not willing to publicly support the cause, you clearly should not sign it. (Although you can choose not to have your name listed on the front-facing site.)
rwallace 14y ago
Perhaps so that if there's a dispute about whether the signatures are genuine, a random sample can be verified to prove it. Have you ever wondered whether you would have had the courage to join the protesters for freedom, had you lived in 1940s India, 1980s Russia or 1990s South Africa? I like to think I would, but who can say for sure; it must've taken courage far beyond anything being asked of us here and now. But we can at least do what is asked of us.

usablebytes 14y ago

This is sad. He may be guilty or may not be because of his act. But him being extradited to US is definitely not making sense.