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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cfaa, computer crimes, extradition, hacking, lauri love, uk, us
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
Red! No, Green!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: OR it could promote hordes of foreign hackers to hijack YOUR computer.
Wow, I've just caught up on the comments there too. Seek help. Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe he'll get 14 years "transportation"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe he'll get 14 years "transportation"
"And *then* to be fined forty pound."
The jury all cheered, though the judge said he feared
That the phrase was not legally sound.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: evidence, we don't need no stinking evidence
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)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]