US Extradition Treaty - an Act of Treason
Poll: US Extradition Treaty - an Act of Treason
Total Members Polled: 132
Discussion
fluffnik said:
The Internet is more like a public park than a house or car - unless it says "Keep Off the Grass" it's reasonable to wander on the grass...
Your house is attached to the public road in the same way that a computer is attached to the Internet. Now please, answer the question: if you leave your front door open, may I walk around in your house?
To take your analogy, if you prefer: if you leave your car in a public carpark, unlocked, may I sit in it?
CommanderJameson said:
fluffnik said:
It is soooo trivial to protect areas you wish to keep private that I think it's entirely reasonable to regard any area not so secured as public.
That's not answering the question. The analogy is the open door. May I walk around in your house if you leave the front door open, and may I sit in your car if you leave it unlocked?By default houses and cars are private.
Most of the internet is public, it cannot be otherwise and work.
My park analogy is far more apposite - you may open any gate that is unlocked...
CommanderJameson said:
fluffnik said:
The Internet is more like a public park than a house or car - unless it says "Keep Off the Grass" it's reasonable to wander on the grass...
Your house is attached to the public road in the same way that a computer is attached to the Internet. Now please, answer the question: if you leave your front door open, may I walk around in your house?
CommanderJameson said:
To take your analogy, if you prefer: if you leave your car in a public carpark, unlocked, may I sit in it?
No, but unlike the internet there is no presumption of public access.A park, like the internet, has a presumption of public access.
fluffnik said:
CommanderJameson said:
fluffnik said:
The Internet is more like a public park than a house or car - unless it says "Keep Off the Grass" it's reasonable to wander on the grass...
Your house is attached to the public road in the same way that a computer is attached to the Internet. Now please, answer the question: if you leave your front door open, may I walk around in your house?
You may disagree with this, but that's the law, as McKinnon has discovered.
The Computer Misuse Act said:
(5) Access of any kind by any person to any program or data held in a computer is unauthorised if—
(a) he is not himself entitled to control access of the kind in question to the program or data; and
(b) he does not have consent to access by him of the kind in question to the program or data from any person who is so entitled.
I think that this means that putting up a web server grants consent for access to the files served by the webserver. Not to other files. I also think that this means that if I don't explicitly provide access to a system, and then make a complete arse-up of securing it, my negligence in securing said system does not grant you the right to access it.(a) he is not himself entitled to control access of the kind in question to the program or data; and
(b) he does not have consent to access by him of the kind in question to the program or data from any person who is so entitled.
Not a Wikipedia link!
esselte said:
CommanderJameson said:
esselte said:
Jasandjules said:
A British Citizen who commits no offence under British Law whilst on British soil should face no sanction for he has violated no law.
Is "hacking" allowed in the UK? Serious question,not being sarky.
CommanderJameson said:
fluffnik said:
The Internet is more like a public park than a house or car - unless it says "Keep Off the Grass" it's reasonable to wander on the grass...
Your house is attached to the public road in the same way that a computer is attached to the Internet. Now please, answer the question: if you leave your front door open, may I walk around in your house?
To take your analogy, if you prefer: if you leave your car in a public carpark, unlocked, may I sit in it?
Jasandjules said:
esselte said:
CommanderJameson said:
esselte said:
Jasandjules said:
A British Citizen who commits no offence under British Law whilst on British soil should face no sanction for he has violated no law.
Is "hacking" allowed in the UK? Serious question,not being sarky.
unrepentant said:
Jimbeaux said:
amsie said:
Jimbeaux said:
unrepentant said:
fluffnik said:
jeff m said:
The other problem is that the US has the death penalty in some states and at Federal level which can delay extradition for a long time. Now there is torture to consider, the lawyers would use that too for reasons not to allow their client to be extradited.
As an aside I don't think we should be extraditing anyone to anywhere with a death penalty.
Hackers and bankers don't get the death penalty.Menguin said:
Jimbeaux said:
fluffnik said:
Jimbeaux said:
fluffnik said:
His only "crime", if such it was, was to expose the rank incompetence of the American military.
It's not like he's responsible for the deaths of countless innocents, like the treasonous twunt who signed the treaty.
I understand your need to voice your obvious disdain for all thing Yank whenever you get the chance, but come on. It's not like he's responsible for the deaths of countless innocents, like the treasonous twunt who signed the treaty.
Jimbeaux said:
I think he should be tried in the U.K., I agree with that; however, picking up litter along the road is a bit too touchy feely a punishment IMO. He may not have killed anyone this time, the crime is still the crime though.
All he did was wander around unsecured areas - I see no crime. As for wandering in unsecure areas, that is akin to someone entering and walking around your house with the excuse that the door was unlocked.The only reason the US are pushing for extradition is because they are embarrassed at how poor their security was.
As for embarrassment; as I said earlier, if that was the case, they would have just dropped the issue. Doing this only brings attention, that is the last thing "embarrassed" persons do.
Jimbeaux said:
unrepentant said:
Jimbeaux said:
amsie said:
Jimbeaux said:
unrepentant said:
fluffnik said:
jeff m said:
The other problem is that the US has the death penalty in some states and at Federal level which can delay extradition for a long time. Now there is torture to consider, the lawyers would use that too for reasons not to allow their client to be extradited.
As an aside I don't think we should be extraditing anyone to anywhere with a death penalty. Hackers and bankers don't get the death penalty.unrepentant said:
Jimbeaux said:
unrepentant said:
Jimbeaux said:
amsie said:
Jimbeaux said:
unrepentant said:
fluffnik said:
jeff m said:
The other problem is that the US has the death penalty in some states and at Federal level which can delay extradition for a long time. Now there is torture to consider, the lawyers would use that too for reasons not to allow their client to be extradited.
As an aside I don't think we should be extraditing anyone to anywhere with a death penalty. Hackers and bankers don't get the death penalty.Tadite said:
What are earth are some of you banging on about?
Extradition isn't new. People get extradited from countries all the time... What do you think? That you can break the law in one country and run to another to hide? sheesh....
Well done. You've managed to completely miss the entire point of the whole thread and do so in a pompous manner. Extradition isn't new. People get extradited from countries all the time... What do you think? That you can break the law in one country and run to another to hide?
sheesh....
The issue at stake is that Bliar signed the UK up to a new extradition treaty that allows the USA to extradite British citizens in circumstances that are not reciprocated. As such it is unique in that in every other situation where Britain has extradition agreements the arrangements are mutual and reciprocal. As such it is patently unfair.
I was reading the act earlier and I have to say I have never seen such a one sided piece of legislation in my life, basically we have to extradite our citizens to them but they can tell us the feck off if we want theirs.
Scrap it and tell them to do one, whoever agreed to that needs taking to court.
Scrap it and tell them to do one, whoever agreed to that needs taking to court.
unrepentant said:
Well done. You've managed to completely miss the entire point of the whole thread and do so in a pompous manner.
The issue at stake is that Bliar signed the UK up to a new extradition treaty that allows the USA to extradite British citizens in circumstances that are not reciprocated. As such it is unique in that in every other situation where Britain has extradition agreements the arrangements are mutual and reciprocal. As such it is patently unfair.
From the Times:The issue at stake is that Bliar signed the UK up to a new extradition treaty that allows the USA to extradite British citizens in circumstances that are not reciprocated. As such it is unique in that in every other situation where Britain has extradition agreements the arrangements are mutual and reciprocal. As such it is patently unfair.
"Home Office figures show that,since January 2004, 46 people were returned to the US out of 78 requests. In the same period, the United States extradited 27 people to Britain out of 37 requests."
So what is this again about how the UK doesn't extract criminals from the US? Hell proportionally you extract over two times more people....
unrepentant said:
Lefty Guns said:
I think the uk justice system should be modelled on the texan one...
Anyway that's a whole new (and regularly debated right here) question.
Immigrants have murdered innocent people, therefore we should halt immigration just in case another innocent person is murdered.
Tadite said:
unrepentant said:
Well done. You've managed to completely miss the entire point of the whole thread and do so in a pompous manner.
The issue at stake is that Bliar signed the UK up to a new extradition treaty that allows the USA to extradite British citizens in circumstances that are not reciprocated. As such it is unique in that in every other situation where Britain has extradition agreements the arrangements are mutual and reciprocal. As such it is patently unfair.
From the Times:The issue at stake is that Bliar signed the UK up to a new extradition treaty that allows the USA to extradite British citizens in circumstances that are not reciprocated. As such it is unique in that in every other situation where Britain has extradition agreements the arrangements are mutual and reciprocal. As such it is patently unfair.
"Home Office figures show that,since January 2004, 46 people were returned to the US out of 78 requests. In the same period, the United States extradited 27 people to Britain out of 37 requests."
So what is this again about how the UK doesn't extract criminals from the US? Hell proportionally you extract over two times more people....
Jimbeaux said:
Tadite said:
unrepentant said:
Well done. You've managed to completely miss the entire point of the whole thread and do so in a pompous manner.
The issue at stake is that Bliar signed the UK up to a new extradition treaty that allows the USA to extradite British citizens in circumstances that are not reciprocated. As such it is unique in that in every other situation where Britain has extradition agreements the arrangements are mutual and reciprocal. As such it is patently unfair.
From the Times:The issue at stake is that Bliar signed the UK up to a new extradition treaty that allows the USA to extradite British citizens in circumstances that are not reciprocated. As such it is unique in that in every other situation where Britain has extradition agreements the arrangements are mutual and reciprocal. As such it is patently unfair.
"Home Office figures show that,since January 2004, 46 people were returned to the US out of 78 requests. In the same period, the United States extradited 27 people to Britain out of 37 requests."
So what is this again about how the UK doesn't extract criminals from the US? Hell proportionally you extract over two times more people....
different view
CommanderJameson said:
fluffnik said:
The Internet is more like a public park than a house or car - unless it says "Keep Off the Grass" it's reasonable to wander on the grass...
Your house is attached to the public road in the same way that a computer is attached to the Internet. Now please, answer the question: if you leave your front door open, may I walk around in your house?
To take your analogy, if you prefer: if you leave your car in a public carpark, unlocked, may I sit in it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff