Nearly every stupid thing I've seen the government do recently has been caused by Theresa May. I don't know much about law but the UK sending a citizen to be tried in the US for something that is not illegal under UK law is disgraceful.
Every time I see a news story that involves this woman I get frustrated.
I just hope we don't have double standards and start extraditing people to Saudi Arabia for adultery - even if they committed the "crime" in the UK.
While we are on the subject shouldn't the UK attempt to extradite US "hate" organisations like the KKK who run a web-site clearly in violation of the UK's Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.
Seriously, why shouldn't we? It is exactly the same thing, they said something online which is illegal to say in the UK - therefore we should extradite them and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
• Signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights cannot extradite people to countries where they might face the death penalty. So no extradition to SA if they could be executed.
• Extradition requires "double criminality", i.e. that the act is a crime in both countries. US Constitutional law means that hate groups are not breaking the law in the US and hence the US would not extradite them.
I believe what he is accused of is illegal under UK law - but that the Crown Prosection Service appears to have no interest in prosecuting him.
Why we would extradite someone for a crime which nobody can be bothered prosecuting him for here seems a complete mystery to me. If he did commit a crime then then get him in a UK court to defend himself:
One is a form of magical thinking -- the idea that "on the internet" should grant some sort of mystical immunity from jurisdiction. There's a fairly large body of pretty well-settled laws and treaties for deciding whether a country has jurisdiction for potentially-criminal actions that cross national borders, and for deciding whether to extradite to that country. That's exactly what's applying here.
Another is wishful thinking: wanting a system that extradites for things HN thinks should be crimes, but doesn't extradite for things that HN thinks shouldn't be crimes. The plain and simple fact is that it doesn't work that way; we can wish that the laws regarding, say, copyright were other than they are, but wishing won't make it so. Only actual changes to the laws will make it so, and extradition treaties are not the laws that would need changing.
Finally, there's the trap of assuming that this sort of thing -- a vengeful, powerful figure abusing the most convenient jurisdiction to punish someone -- is somehow new, or is unique to the US. Libel tourism is a relevant example here, since the UK is often a very friendly venue for those who seek legal revenge on critics/dissenters. It also ties in quite nicely with the second point above, because it has resulted in other countries actually changing their legal systems to bar enforcement of UK libel judgements.
I was actually kind of hoping that would get brought up, because it leads into a useful parallel to the extradition case.
The US libel-enforcement ban does not name specific countries, so far as I'm aware; rather, it simply bans enforcement of any foreign libel judgement if that judgement is inconsistent with the US Constitution's guarantees of free speech. In other words, it refuses to enforce a libel judgement if that judgement could not have been made under US law.
Meanwhile, the extradition at issue here boils down to a treaty which permits extradition if the alleged act would be a crime in the UK.
From what I've read, I think extradition is the correct outcome with respect to the current state of the relevant laws and treaties.
This is not the same as agreeing with or supporting the currently-adopted regime of copyright enforcement.
I will state that I have very little respect for the modern notions of copyright disobedience. Historically, civil disobedience as a form of protest against unfair or unjust laws has carried with it the implicit assumption that such disobedience will be punished, perhaps quite brutally. The reality of that punishment is a large part of what makes civil disobedience noble, and serves to provoke broader outrage at the state of the laws which permit such punishment to occur.
Modern copyright dissenters lack that nobility, and without punishment, lack any way to generate broad sympathy for themselves and outrage against the laws.
Is she elected? Write her an email with your opinion.
Since ACTA affair I've started to write emails to politicians every time I don't like sth, telling them why I don't like it, and that I'll persuade my friends not to vote them because of the things they did that I don't like.
I don't know if it works, but I feel much better after sending such email :) I even got a few responses (mostly stupid, but still).
Is she elected? Yes. Was she elected for that role? No, she was picked out for it.
And despite people saying "this is stupid" she's got a track record for taking a standpoint and refusing to move even when it's one that causes people to actually get motivated in saying "We think this is wrong".
To be fair, sometimes it does look like a government can't win: stand your ground and you'll be abused for being insensitive, change your mind and you'll be crucified for flip-flopping/being indecisive and out of touch (see also: pasty tax, fuel duty etc).
This doesn't mean they aren't a bunch of nasty Tories (they are) or that they are right on this issue (they are not); it's just that criticizing a politician for his day-to-day behaviour rather than his/her political stance is just a way of buying in the politics-as-sport worldview pushed by media interests.
Well the issue with this more than pastygate or the fuel duty is it's not good for British citizens as a whole. It sets a worrying precedent of them kowtowing to U.S media interests when they've already said "We don't think it's worth the time in prosecuting internally". Sure, this is a larger scale thing but it indicates that British citizens are now not only subject to laws of their own country, but also of America if they so choose.
Granted they've probably bowed to the extradition demand because America has a 'special relationship' for us in terms of economy and the like, but it reinforces the belief that we're essentially puppets for America.
What will have happened is, the CIA will have said "send us the kid or you wont get a scrap of intelligence from us again." They have a track record of doing that. That's why we have secret courts now: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9...
Why would the CIA be interested in damaging a symbiotic relationship with UK Intelligence services in order to extradite a UK national who is not being tried for anything even moderately related to their agency's remit? Or, in simpler terms, do you think the CIA cares enough about this kid to bully the home secretary into deporting him?
The CIA is interested in expanding their power to manipulate foreign governments and to pluck foreign citizens away from their homes at will. If nothing else, this sets another precedent in their favor in that regard.
Maybe it's not coming from the CIA, I'm not totally familiar with who orders who around when it comes to this stuff. Some branch of US.gov at any rate.
The headline is misleading editorial which doesn't seem to have any sources to back up anything... Fox News worthy.
Is there a reliable source to say that the government will ignore this petition? Has Theresa May given a direct response?
This 'article' seems to have no actual new verified news in it from what I can see.
Personally I'm hopeful either the petition will have an effect, or he'll be able to drag things out indefinitely like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon (US have been trying to get him for 10 years for "unauthorised computer access").
Probably the best thing he could do is to get married and have some children...
The only difference is hyperbole. BoingBoing doesn't pretend to be CNET or the New York Times. Anyone who can't detect hyperbole should throw themselves off a bridge.
The Home Office has confirmed home secretary Theresa May will
not block TVShack founder Richard O'Dwyer's US extradition,
despite widespread calls for her to do so.
The office confirmed to V3 that it was aware of Wikipedia founder
Jimmy Wales' anti-extradition petition, but would not be swayed by
it on Monday.
"Richard O'Dwyer is wanted in the US for offences related to
copyright infringement," a Home Office spokesman told V3.
Look, this isn't about some noble soul trying to better the internet for the sake of others; it's about someone who set up a commercial concern (bringing in c. 15,000 GBP/month), promoted the most popular pirated movies on its homepage, told users how to bypass a hosting site's own monetization strategies and not to complain about them as it's cheaper than going to the cinema, and after the first domain seizure, immediately set up another with a "Fuck Tha Police" video on its homepage.
For some reason, people in IT often seem to think the law doesn't apply to you if you act within sly nod nod, wink wink guidelines. As O'Dwyer's learning to his cost, that's not the case.
I don't think anyone is saying what the kid did was moral, or that he didn't do anything wrong.
The point is though,
1) He didn't commit a crime in the UK. There was no law forbidding him to do these things. Rightly so? Maybe not. Does it matter? I wouldn't say so. People should get in trouble based on laws, and laws only. It's about the principle, if people can get in trouble for not breaking any laws, but you know, he's a bad dude and all, then there is a serious problem with the legal system.
2) He did this whilst in the UK, and is being extradited to the US. I read that most of the site's visitors weren't even american, I'm not sure about the accuracy of that but I don't think it matters. You shouldn't be extradited cause you did something that's illegal in another country. Are we going to start extraditing people to iran for blasphemy as well?
Are we going to start extraditing people to iran for blasphemy as well?
Extradition requires "double criminality", i.e. that something is a crime in both countries. Blasphemy against Christianity (or maybe just the Church of England) was a crime in the England and Wales until 2008. I'm not sure but Iran's blasphemy law might only apply to Islam. So there's never really been the same crime.
Additionally, signatories of the European Convention of Human Rights forbid extradition to a country for a crime which has the death penalty.
He didn't commit a crime in the UK. There was no law forbidding him to do these things
I've updated my comment to reflect the law that he's alleged to be tried under. I don't know how the extradition agreements work though - maybe the UK have signed away their rights to prosecute someone as soon as the USA steps in? Wouldn't be surprised at any rate.
What he did or didn't do is immaterial. Our sovereign government has decided not to prosecute him. A foreign power is unilaterally using their economic and military might to make our government hand over his person. That is Wrong™ and it would be so regardless of his alleged crimes.
Our sovereign government has decided not to prosecute him.
They did, however, agree to their extradition agreements with the USA. But this is neither here nor there; I'm more concerned with the "he did nothing wrong" angle that is being used in argument against his extradition, whilst very ignoring the facts of the matter.
I understand (from your own source article) that people who very much are lawyers disagree that providing a link is a crime, and that the only UK prosecution of such did not provide a decision either way.
I understand (from your own source article) that people who very much are lawyers disagree that providing a link is a crime
I would very much hope that my defense lawyers would say the same ;)
and that the only UK prosecution of such did not provide a decision either way.
Which doesn't really help us either way in this case. I think that a ruling needs to be made one way or the other - somehow, some way - just to clear up stuff like this.
The U.K. Home Office has confirmed that Home Secretary
Theresa May will not block the extradition of British
student Richard O'Dwyer to the US, despite calls for
her to intervene.
Just to play devil's advocate here, if the offences were conducted in the US (US hosted servers, paid for in dollars and earning e.g. advertising revenue from US customers serving ads to US users) then maybe he has a case to answer for in the US. I don't know, I made those things up because I'm not familiar with the case. If anyone here knows more please do tell.
If that is the case, then it's just a question of whether he should be tried in the US or the UK. However if you set yourself up to do business in the US and break the law there by e.g. violating the copyrights of US companies, surely doing so while sitting in another country should be no defence?
As I say, I don't know enough about this case to be able to say but the basic principles of responsibility in play here seem sound to me. If you earn US dollars in the US and break US laws, you should be prepared to defend yourself in a US court. No?
Not if you are in France, Germany, Austria, Russia, China or Japan - who apparently never extradite their nationals. Rather their laws give jurisdiction over laws committed by their nationals while abroad.
Given this kind of nonsense, I can see that they might have a point.
They weren't US Hosted Servers fyi. Richard confirmed this before. The only reason the US is claiming is that it was a .net and the dns goes through Verisign.
If that's the case, and that's the whole of their justification, then it seems a pretty flimsy pretext. I'm not trying to be obtuse, but in almost all the cases like this I've seen in the media, there just hasn't been anywhere near enough information about the case to come to an informed opinion.
I support this guy's cause, but I'm flagging the story.
Nobody is being rendered. The Home Secretary told nobody to show up.
Simply because I agree with a cause doesn't mean I have to put up with lying in my headlines. Hyperbole is one thing, misstating the facts for a better headline is another.
I have nothing against Boing Boing. Seems like a great site and I visit quite a bit. Love the style. But over on HN if you start off a story with this much deception in the headline, there's just no way the ensuing conversation can be productive.
I've now gone and done a search. The source for all this is the story on V3. That was submitted a couple of hours ago and got no upvotes, no attention, no comments, and sank without trace:
The more sensationalist headline (which I quoted unchanged) from a different article has got dozens of comments and dozens of upvotes.
An audience will get what it deserves. Link-baity titles get attention, even (especially?) when inaccurate. With the constant re-submission of so many stories, it's now unsurprising that the hyperbolic, emotion-laden submissions are the ones that get rewarded.
Given the number of stories here that get mod-edited to the source site headline almost immediately (even when that headline is meaningless) this is a lose-lose situation
Every time I see a news story that involves this woman I get frustrated.