
Petition to stop extradition of UK hacker - sparknlaunch
http://www.change.org/petitions/ukhomeoffice-stop-the-extradition-of-richard-o-dwyer-to-the-usa-saverichard
======
smutticus
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.

~~~
lifeisstillgood
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>

------
duiker101
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
> 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.

~~~
nuaccnt
Yes! / to crush the tyranny / let's find ourself a new Robespierre / a Lenin /
a Mao / I mean / what could possibly go wrong?

~~~
gouranga
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.

------
citricsquid
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
Which law exactly was he breaking? And how did you determine that it is quite
clear?

~~~
citricsquid
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_copyri...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_ODwyer#US_and_UK_copyright_offences)

~~~
rcgs
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>.
If anything, it is quite unclear which UK laws he has broken.

~~~
joeblau
Yeah, that's true, but Google also complies with DMCA.

~~~
mibbitier
DMCA is a piece of US law. Why is DMCA relevant to a kid setting up a website
in the UK?

------
benhalllondon
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-1826680...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-
yorkshire-18266805)

The guy was earning heaps of money.

~~~
rcgs
So does Google. Your point?

~~~
vladd
Google has a registered DMCA agent, includes a DMCA dashboard (
<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> .

~~~
cf0ed2aa-bdf5
And all that is (or should be) completely irrelevant since we are talking
about a British guy hosting a website that not primarily targeted US audience.

I am not a lawyer but I am fairly sure O'Dwyer does not have to abide the
Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Google, as an American Website, however has
to.

~~~
vladd
According to the Extradition Act 2003 of the UK Parliament [
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003> ,
[http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/UK_USA_extradition.p...](http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/UK_USA_extradition.pdf)
], article 2.1, "An offense shall be an extraditable offense if the conduct on
which the offense is based is punishable under the laws in both States by
deprivation of liberty for a period of one year or more or by a more severe
penalty.".

I suspect the UK law that was broken was
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Economy_Act_2010> and that is being used
by US to request the extradition.

Once on US territory, US law would apply.

At that level of income, a significant part of his audience could be proven to
be from US. It would also matter if he used US servers, US registrars (.net is
controlled by Verisign which is an American corporation) and so on, but I
doubt prosecutors would have much issues in proving US jurisdiction once he's
in USA.

~~~
rlpb
What you say makes sense, _assuming that_ jurisdiction is clearly with the
country that is requesting extradition.

What I fail to understand is why the US has jurisdiction here. What brings
this crime to the US? If it is just that the US is on the Internet too, then
the logical extension would be to pass this guy around every country in the
world, which is clearly ridiculous.

He should be answerable to the law. But the UK seems like the appropriate
jurisdiction here, not the US. If the problem is that UK law doesn't cover
this case, then that is what should be questioned, rather than pretending that
the US has jurisdiction in order to work around the rule of law.

------
ColinWright
Interview with Richard O'Dwyer here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155627>

Jimmy Wales supports the case: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4155689>

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

~~~
rwallace
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.

------
Zenst
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
Perhaps it is because the UK is ultimately responsible for deciding whether or
not to extradite.

------
dancesdrunk
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>) / Her Majesty's Government
(<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.

------
usablebytes
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.

------
Zenst
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.

~~~
okamiueru
> 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
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
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.

