nav search
Data Center Software Security Transformation DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes BOFH

back to article
Should Computer Misuse Act offences committed in UK be prosecuted in UK?

Seems simple to me

If you break into / illegally access a server or system, then you're prosecuted in the place that the server or system resides.

To put it another way, if I co-ordinated a bank robbery in another country, where would I be tried? I'm fairly sure it wouldn't usually be in Britain.

7
30
Silver badge

Re: Seems simple to me

Let's continue the analogy.

If you burgle an ATM terminal of a Swiss bank in UK are you tried in UK or Switzerland?

The issue with computer crime is exactly that:

1. There are on average up to ten intermediate points in a a complex attack each of which has an equally valid claim to the scalp of the attacker.

2. There are multiple targets in a lot of attacks which quite often are in multiple jurisdictions, each of which has an equally valid claim to the scalp as well.

Trying computer (as well as some types of fraud) crime at the point of source is the _ONLY_ way of getting around this. This unfortunately means that some playground bullies which think that their playground rule book applies to everyone and they can do a wedgie on anyone they like will have to get into the orderly queue of filing a complaint to the principal so he can compile it and act on it.

The downside is that the current practice of trying at a "chosen" target location allows to set-up abductions and renditions of foreign citizens traveling abroad so they are extradited for trial. Switching to "try at source" means that we have to cooperate with their legal systems and try them at source which quite often is simply not on the menu.

31
3
Silver badge

Re: Seems simple to me

Careful what you wish for - fancy being prosecuted in North Korea?

15
3

Re: Seems simple to me

Fancy it, no. Nor would I have the right to whinge about it if that's the published consequence of the activity.

5
8

Re: Seems simple to me

The UK has an extradition agreement with North Korea? Bloody hell. How did this not make the news?

18
0
Silver badge

Re: Seems simple to me

Let's try another one... boiler rooms selling false financial products.

There have been many set up in Spain and up until a couple of years ago police in the UK have hit a brick wall due to Spanish police saying they weren't interested because no crime took place in Spain. Eventually they changed their tune and it turns out that yes, the crime was actually committed in Spain - the boiler room was set up in Spain, the phones were in Spain, the people selling the false products were in an office in Spain, and the money went to somewhere under the boiler room's control, and the houses and cars belonging to the ringleaders were in Spain.

The fact that the crime was committed in Spain seems fairly uncontroversial. Why should Laurie Love's case be any different?

18
2
Silver badge
Big Brother

Re: Seems simple to me

>Fancy it, no. Nor would I have the right to whinge about it if that's the published consequence of the activity.

It's just a prosecution, no-one's saying you've actually done something wrong. I'm *sure* you'll be found not guilty and returned promptly and unharmed.

10
1
Silver badge

Re: Seems simple to me

What's the extradition treaty like with them?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: spanish boiler rooms

if people are being defrauded in the UK by people in spain , surely they should be tried in the UK , and the spanish police should hand them over with the extradition laws.

I'm sure they would be "not interested" if ronny biggs robbed a train in the UK and fled to spain. no crime has been committed in spain but theyd still be obliged to hand him over surely

3
3

Re: spanish boiler rooms

It's a false dichotomy: crimes have in fact been committed in both countries. Same as the Lauri Love case, then.

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: Seems simple to me

"Careful what you wish for - fancy being prosecuted in North Korea?"

There's prisoners in the UK digging their flesh out alive such is the UK's psychological softpower if you didnt know. Whilst entrapment is illegal in the UK, its not in the US. What the SIS cant do, they get 5Eyes members to do for them. Sometimes I think the public are just pawns in a global chess game played by psychopaths. Divide and conquer, been in use since Roman times, as seen in education, media outlets and so on....

17
3
Silver badge

Sometimes I think the public are just pawns in a global chess game played by psychopaths.

Cannot upvote this enough...

9
0

Re: Seems simple to me

@ tr1ck5t3r

"Whilst entrapment is illegal in the UK..."

Sam Allardyce?

3
2
Silver badge

Re: Seems simple to me

He wasn't entrapped into breaking a law but the rules of the governing body.

4
1

Re: Seems simple to me

@ James 51

"He wasn't entrapped into breaking a law but the rules of the governing body."

Oh, that sort of entrapment.

Well, that's alright then.

7
1

Entrapment

Entrapment is not illegal in the UK. Evidence gathered via entrapment is inadmissable in court. Not the same thing. The police don't get prosecuted if they commit entrapment; they just fail in their attempt to prosecute someone else.

3
1
Silver badge

Re: Seems simple to me

I didn't say it was alright, just why he and the journalists aren't potentially in legal trouble.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Entrapment

Evidence gathered via entrapment is inadmissable in court.

I do not believe that is true in the UK. The courts have long held that "evidence is evidence", no matter how obtained. If there has been any crime or abuse of process involved in procuring that evidence it is a separate matter which can be dealt with independently, it doesn't invalidate the evidence.

It is up to the court and jury to determine if the evidence presented is an indicator of guilt or not, whether it is genuine sentiment or came about simply through that entrapment.

5
0

Re: Entrapment

Oh, I stand corrected. Thanks for that.

I fell into the trap of assuming the commenter was basically correct about entrapment and correcting his use of the term "illegal".

I do know a load of speeding convictions have been nullified on the grounds that the police speed-traps were hidden and that that constituted entrapment (which seems a bit odd to me, but hey).

2
0
Silver badge
Angel

Re: Entrapment

" ... nullified on the grounds that the police speed-traps were hidden ... "

Can you quote an English/Welsh case before a judge where a conviction was overturned because the speed trap was hidden? Even better would be an Appeal Court or Supreme Court decision that would be binding on the courts.

There are many pages of guidance about the visibility of speed cameras because they are a road safety measure, not for raising revenue (stop sniggering at the back!) I concede that there may be a few occasions where the Safety Camera Partnership may have decided not to prosecute but I have yet to hear of a case in court where hidden camera has succeeded as a defence.

2
0

Re: Seems simple to me

I get your point, however its highly unlikely anyone from the UK would be extradited to North Korea. If anyone hacked NK's server's they'd probably be a hero in the West. Whereas getting extradited to the US is well on the cards.

Every time I read articles like this I just start humming The The's song Heatland "This is the 51st State of the US of A"

4
0

Re: Sometimes I think the public are just pawns in a global chess game played by psychopaths.

Is being "psychopathic" a "good" management trait ? (apparently)

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Seems simple to me

People do sometimes smash up ATM machines to try to get the money. I'm not sure they ever do actually get any money out of the machines, because physical security is pretty good. They get prosecuted for criminal damage in whichever UK country they did the raid in.

The people who actually do successfully steal money out of an ATM tend to go up to the machine with a card, and withdraw money in the same way that we would withdraw money from our bank accounts. They do a lot of stuff on computers before cashing out to make the machine give them the money, and usually the person who withdraws the money from the machine isn't the person doing the stuff on the computers. They bought the card for a discount on the account balance.

1
0

Re: Entrapment

The Court can grant a stay if they deem it to be entrapment, i.e. they presented the defendant an opportunity to commit a crime they would not normally have done otherwise, but that is dependant on circumstance, e.g. a test purchase is ok if they had good reason to suspect someone but they can't go and leave something lying about to tempt someone to steal or offer random people money for doing something illegal.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: spanish boiler rooms

"if people are being defrauded in the UK by people in spain , surely they should be tried in the UK , and the spanish police should hand them over with the extradition laws.

I'm sure they would be "not interested" if ronny biggs robbed a train in the UK and fled to spain. no crime has been committed in spain but theyd still be obliged to hand him over surely"

Thanks for showing up the difference in the two situations. Biggs committed a robbery in the UK and fled abroad. It's not only perfectly reasonable that he should be extradited to the UK for trial. That's where the action happened.

If, on the other hand the action happened in Spain: telephonists, telephones, computers & whatnot then that's the place for the trial.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Seems simple to me

US law is actually pretty clear on this. If you're standing on Highway 35 in Kansas, and you shoot someone who's standing 100 yards down the road in Oklahoma, it's the state and people of Kansas that you'll be answering to. (Absent complicating factors, like either you or your target being an Oklahoma law enforcement officer.)

The crime is committed where the criminal is, not where the "victim" is. This really isn't hard.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Seems simple to me

Let's continue the analogy.

If you burgle an ATM terminal of a Swiss bank in UK are you tried in UK or Switzerland?

You're still fitting in with what the OP put in that the offence - the digital break and enter - took place where the server resides, anything else such as misuse of systems along the way is just extras. In your analogy the ATM is in the UK and thus so is the crime.

A more interesting analogy might be you in the UK hacking the servers of Google/Facebook in a UK data centre that causes issues to propagate around the zones. Where then? UK? Each zone?

What it really comes down to is that the US are effectively the colonial power of the day and they make the rules by and large. A century or more ago the UK was likely doing the same thing shitting on people although not for internet crimes.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Entrapment

If there has been any crime or abuse of process involved in procuring that evidence it is a separate matter which can be dealt with independently, it doesn't invalidate the evidence.

Pretty sure that if there is a crime in gathering evidence it is inadmissible else you could just torture confessions out of whomever you liked.

0
1
Vic
Silver badge

Re: Seems simple to me

US law is actually pretty clear on this. If you're standing on Highway 35 in Kansas, and you shoot someone who's standing 100 yards down the road in Oklahoma, it's the state and people of Kansas that you'll be answering to

And yet - if you're sitting in your room in the UK and you get a computer in the US to send you some data it shouldn't, the reverse applies...

Vic.

1
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: Entrapment

Pretty sure that if there is a crime in gathering evidence it is inadmissible

That's US law. It's rather different on this side of the Atlantic :-(

Vic.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Take (NOT) back control

The issue is that it will be impossible to build cases for prosecutions because the USA judicial system will refuse to cooperate. It presently operates under the auspices of a doctrine which specifies that American law is extraterritorial, applies to anyone and everyone, no other law exists, international law does not exist and a USA court can issue a judgment to apply anywhere in the world.

Insisting that we _REALLY_ take back control and prosecute locally means that there will be NO prosecutions at all at least for crimes committed in the USA, because for the USA law enforcement this means acknowledging that their extraterritoriality doctrine is a load of fermented bovine excrement which is long overdue to be taken out in the field and perused the way BS is used in real life - as manure. They will not provide the applicable information to build cases and continue to insist on extradition.

In any case, any ideas that the local county council of Airstrip One will get any CONTROL are delusional. Like it or not, Eu directives were one of the last things in between us and a corporatocracy. They will be gone in two years and then the corporate rule will begin in earnest.

51
3
Silver badge

Re: Take (NOT) back control

Well said, have an upvote.

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Take (NOT) back control

can we not dwell on this silly catchphrase of "taking back control"? This carries absolutely no meaning other than when a politician tries to gain some traction for the bullshit he / she's spewing in front of the camera.

24
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Take (NOT) back control

@AC, pretty much agree with all you have said apart from the last bit. The EU is already in corporate pockets thanks to plenty of lobbyists and the machinations of the Bilderberg Group.

Juncker used to run one of Europe's most well known tax havens, Amazon how is your tax bill by the way, still zero ?

Have an upvote, good piece on the whole.

12
4

Re: Take (NOT) back control

"EU directives were on if the last things in between us and a corporatocracy"

*cough* You do know about TTIP, right? *cough*

4
4
Silver badge

Re: Take (NOT) back control

"You do know about TTIP, right?"

What, you mean that stuff that various EU countries are demanding be rejected; while the post brexit government would probably sign up enthusiastically just to prove that "trade deals are better out of the EU" or some other carefully spun rubbish?

12
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Take (NOT) back control

*cough* You do know about TTIP, right? *cough*

I do know about it. I also know that the sole reason it is not dead yet was pretty much because of one Eu country leader which we can emphatically call the DeadPigF*cker.

As the DeadPigF*cker is no longer involved by the nature of his country voting to leave the Eu, it is as good as having an ash stake through it heart and buried 6 feet under ground.

With the country previous lead by the DeadPigF*cker leaving the Eu and not having voice in the negotiations the executive summary on the TTIP is "not happening" - both France and Germany are against it.

7
0

Re: Take (NOT) back control

I wouldn't be so sure. There's always going to be more attempts to introduce something similar

http://www.monbiot.com/2016/09/07/here-they-come-again/

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Take (NOT) back control

"The issue is that it will be impossible to build cases for prosecutions because the USA judicial system will refuse to cooperate. It presently operates under the auspices of a doctrine which specifies that American law is extraterritorial, applies to anyone and everyone, no other law exists, international law does not exist and a USA court can issue a judgment to apply anywhere in the world."

Well, if the rest of the world decides not to play that game the US has a clear choice: it can forgo the ability to have such crimes prosecuted or it can decide that maybe it's not everyone else that's out of step.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Take (NOT) back control

"This carries absolutely no meaning other than when a politician tries to gain some traction for the bullshit he / she's spewing in front of the camera."

Whether it carries meaning or not is irrelevant. It has had an effect. I think that as the consequences of that effect become clear it's perfectly right that those who uttered it should be held up to ridicule. That might be a disproportionately meagre punishment but it's probably all we'll be able to administer.

0
0
Vic
Silver badge

Re: Take (NOT) back control

Well, if the rest of the world decides not to play that game the US has a clear choice: it can forgo the ability to have such crimes prosecuted or it can decide that maybe it's not everyone else that's out of step.

You forgot Option 3: throw its weight around and force others to accept its view.

Which do you think is the most likely?

Vic.

0
0
Silver badge

Should be tried here as this is were they where when the crime was committed. The other countries should be able to have some input into the process but the US extradition system is simply abusive and I pity any poor mug who gets handed over.

Pet peeve: I hate it when people use an accident of geography and cartography to pretend there is something exceptional about GB. The only way you could put the 'Great' back into GB is if there is a massive expansion of ice coverage on earth causing a land bridge to form between GB and mainland Europe and then you cause that ice to be melted submerging the land bridge.*

*I've read in various places that the term Great comes from Roman writers who didn't have a firm grasp of geography or because of James VI/I holding the crowns of Scotland and England. Given that the lesser/greater naming convention applies world wide it's the explanation that I find the most logical but I don't have enough evidence to rule the others out. Either way, I rank putting the great in Great Britain as a slogan up there with politicians that say God loves our country/We are God fearing/God's will etc etc and therefore we have the right to do what ever we what to whom ever we want to do it to where ever we want to do it. It's a substitute for critical thinking and something used to lull a gullible and stupid electorate into a stupor.

10
9

> I've read in various places that the term Great comes from Roman writers who didn't have a firm grasp of geography or because of James VI/I holding the crowns of Scotland and England.

Don't know where you read such things, but the "Great" in "Great Britain" originally referred to the fact that it is the largest of the British Isles. That is why Northern Ireland is in Britain but not in Great Britain.

The phrase has of course come to have other connotations over the years, as "great" has come to mean "good" as well as "big". Pretty sure we don't have any politicians who are somehow under the impression that the largest of the British Isles has been overtaken in size by one of the Orkneys.

11
0
Silver badge

are there any other countries that have chosen to put a bragging adjective before their name?

I'm surprised North Korea hasnt. Or maybe thay have in korean

Sunny spain?

Fantastic France?

triffic trinnidad?

2
7

Err - the Greeks and Egyptians coined this term for the Larger Island in the British Isles. This is to differentiate between it and other islands like Ireland and also to differentiate between The UK and Great Britain. Most commonly people refer to the UK but Northern Ireland does have it's own devolved Government where some legislation is different to that of Great Britain.

Or were you being ironic?

Many people who live here put adjectives before the word Britain but they are often not what you would call "bragging". Most common are 'Sh1thole', 'RipOff' and 'Broken'.

12
0
Silver badge

Well, not before the name...

@Prst. V.Jeltz - Try China: 中國, usually translated as "Middle Kingdom", implying "the centre of civilisation, everything else is barbarians". Or one that no longer exists: the Holy Roman Empire.

Would you count putting "Democratic" in your name as boasting?

6
0
Anonymous Coward

@Squander Two

As the country is likely to go down the drain after many multinationals leave think it should be renamed 'Grate Britain'

1
6

Re: Well, not before the name...

> Would you count putting "Democratic" in your name as boasting?

I'd almost always count it as lying. "The Democratic Republic of" is never either.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Everyone knows North Korea is best Korea.

3
0

and little britain is nowadays called brittany

0
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing