Hacker Lauri Love Wins Extradition Appeal; Won't Be Shipped Off To The US
from the phew dept
We’ve been writing about the saga of Lauri Love for almost four years now. If you don’t recall, he’s the British student who was accused of hacking into various US government systems, and who has been fighting a battle against being extradited to the US for all these years. For those of you old timers, the situation was quite similar to the story of Gary McKinnon, another UK citizen accused of hacking into US government computers, and who fought extradition for years. In McKinnon’s case, he lost his court appeals, but the extradition was eventually blocked by the UK’s Home Secretary… Theresa May.
In the Lauri Love case, the situation went somewhat differently. A court said Love could be extradited and current Home Secretary Amber Rudd was happy to go along with it. But, somewhat surprisingly, an appeals court has overruled the lower court and said Love should not be extradited:
Lawyers for the 32-year-old, who lives in Suffolk, had argued that he should be tried for his alleged crimes in the UK and that he would be at risk of killing himself if sent to the US.
The court accepted both of the main arguments advanced by Love?s lawyers that there was no reason he could not be tried in England and that he might suffer serious damage to his health if he were extradited.
Love may now face a trial in the UK — but that is considered a much better option than being shipped overseas. After the ruling, Love noted that this could impact future cases of individuals in similar circumstances, and the link above quotes some lawyers suggesting that it’s going to be much more difficult for the US to extradite people for computer crimes going forward. Given the ridiculousness of the CFAA and the way that the US treats computer crimes, this is clearly a good thing.
Filed Under: cfaa, computer crimes, extradition, hacking, lauri love, uk, us
Comments on “Hacker Lauri Love Wins Extradition Appeal; Won't Be Shipped Off To The US”
OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
You can never see a downside, Mr Optimist.
By the way, more comments of mine for you to
censor, I mean "hide", back at the Nunes story.
Five tries, but since can’t block them, and are
entirely okay under common law, WHAT is your
authority for and point of playing whack-a-mole?
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
There are already hordes of foreign hackers. The US already has the highest first world prison population. Don’t need to add foreigners to the count.
Re: Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
I hid your comment, Blue. I actually do it on prinicple because you’re such a jerk. I did it by clicking on the red button to the right of your post. If enough of us do this, your post gets hidden.
Please feel free to return the favour.
I’m not sure whether any of my posts have ever been hidden but then again I don’t spend my life being obnoxious then complaining that the other readers don’t like what I have to say.
Re: Re: Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
“I’m not sure whether any of my posts have ever been hidden”
Me neither, actually. I comment, tick the box to get an email if someone else posts then move on to something else. I’ll generally not return to a thread unless there’s a response or I follow a link to it at a later point. So, I don’t know how many, if any, are reported (nor for that matter marked as funny or insightful, unless they turn up on one of the weekly posts).
But, you know what? I really don’t care. If our resident moron wanted to go through however many IPs are necessary for him to report every one of my comments and have them all hidden, it wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. I state my honest opinion, and if they were considered worthy of hiding for whatever reason then so be it. People who wished to view my comment could still do so.
I would be rather disappointed that people hiding the posts chose to do so rather than engage with me and discuss why they thought my words were unacceptable. But, I suppose that’s what separates the vain fool above who clearly keeps checking back unprompted for whatever reason, and the more intelligent among us who honestly wish to engage conversation.
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
You do realize that it’s us ACs and regular users clicking that red flag that hides your posts?
And what even does common law have to do with…no, I’m not going to get a reasonable answer out of you.
You don’t have a right to force somebody to broadcast your speech.
Re: Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
He will never realize. His perception is his reality and that is unchangeable.
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
The Techdirt logo doesn’t have a gold border. Under the Banana Republic Second Circuit Court of Captain Kangaroo, I hereby place you on time out from your silly postings.
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
if you are going to claim a common law right, you will be able to cite the case where the judgment gave you the right.
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
I told you aleady. I’m the goddamn Batman!
Re: Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
/man/shit/
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
Bit rich for an ‘Anonymous Coward’ to talk about hiding.
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
If I had to hazard a guess: They own the platform and you don’t.
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
Red! No, Green!
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
The US already has its own team of hackers backed by your precious NSA. For the rest of the world, the US is a horde of foreign hackers. Nice try, dumbass.
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
“OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.”
Go on, I’ll bite. Why would a person not being extradited to a foreign country, but still prosecuted under the laws they broke in their own country, promote others to hack you? nI know you’re just being an obnoxious twat, as usual, but I’d intrigued as to how your broken mind connects the dots here. It it that you ignore inconvenient facts, or is it that you buy into a fantasy that people will stop doing bad things if only the US has domination over the world’s laws?
“entirely okay under common law”
This is a private, not government site. Common law doesn’t apply here. If the community tell you you’re not welcome, you have no right to post. This is the community exercising their free speech, not yours violated.
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
“back at the Nunes story”
Wow, I’ve just caught up on the comments there too. Seek help. Seriously.
One more sad Aaron’s legacy?!
The subtext in all of this is that the court found that the way the US treats prisoners is inhumane. Which is of course correct.
Maybe he'll get 14 years "transportation"
to Australia, like the good old days.
Re: Maybe he'll get 14 years "transportation"
“Transportation for life,” was the sentence it gave,
“And then to be fined forty pound.”
The jury all cheered, though the judge said he feared
That the phrase was not legally sound.
While I understand not wanting to be extradited to the US, being on the spectrum should not become the gold standard for not being held responsible for what you have done and I hope the British courts do that. I am around people with these issues every day and every one of them knows what they are doing. They are not stupid, they do not have the minds of children, and they know when they are doing something they shouldn’t.
Re: Re:
But he’s not getting away with anything – the judge said he could be tried in England, under British law. Next step is up to the prosecutors
Re: Re: Re:
But will the US prosecutors present real evidence in a jurisdiction where they cannot bully somebody into a plea bargain?
Re: Re: Re: evidence, we don't need no stinking evidence
they will just throw the crapatchya (like a captcha), but they just make up a whole bunch of crap that looks like machine input and then claim that the user violated the CFAA and now they have to survive the crapatchya and explain any of the crap that seems to have stuck to them…
I think monkeys are involved in the process as well since they are so good at throwing crapatchya’s (either as judge, jury, or prosecutor… or all 3)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they don’t, then it’s on them. It would also support the idea that he was being railroaded into an unfair trial by the extradition attempt, and support the decision here not to extradite him.
Extradition to the US: Now confirmed as a threat to prisoners
The court accepted both of the main arguments advanced by Love’s lawyers that there was no reason he could not be tried in England and that he might suffer serious damage to his health if he were extradited.
So the court accepted the argument that the US legal/prison system is so bad that extraditing someone to the US would pose a serious risk to the one being extradited, to the point that doing so would be unjust and/or excessive punishment of the accused.
Oh yeah, you know your country’s rep is bad when courts in other countries consider extradition to you a bad idea.