Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

tptacek

Czech Republic a member of European Union: Check!

Czech Republic a NATO Ally: Check!

Computer Crime Illegal In Czech Republic by Czech Law: Check!

Computer Crime Illegal In European Union: Check!

Bilateral Extradition Treaty Present Between US and Czech Republic: Check!

European Union Recognizes Validity Of Bilateral Extradition Treaties With The US: Check!

I am not clear on the basis of Russia's expectation that they're going to get their hacker back soon.

View on HN

Czech Republic, is supposedly a base of Russia espionage for European Union[1]. There are very close connections between our high-profile politics to people around Putin.[2] My guess is that he will be returned to Russia.

I recommend to read the profile published by Guardian last year on Czech president Milos Zeman.[3]

[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/czechrepubl...

[2] http://praguemonitor.com/2016/08/10/zeman-attend-conference-...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/15/milos-...

Anecdotally, my wife grew up in Prague and has said it is a favorite for Russian tourism, so it's probably fairly easy to enter the E.U. there.

Yup, Prague and especially Karlovy Vary are full of Russian tourists.

Not just tourists, unfortunately they own a large part of that city.

they are pretty much the majority of the people in karlovy vary.

I can't blame them for that :) Prague is beautiful.

Unfortunately, our (Czech) president is a big friend with Russia/China etc., he actively pulls strings in the background, so I wouldnt be surprised if this scenario would magically happen, somehow.

That would mean pissing of the US big time though.

Now they have the choice between aggravating the US or Russia. Ahh, good old times...

Hong Kong showed the way with Snowden: You ping the victim giving him a 24 to 48h head start. Then he is gone and it's or your problem anymore.

How is this possible after 1968? This world is strange.

Strange question. People are friends with Germany, no? Japan has good relationships with the US etc.

You do realise that in modern russia Stalin is considered a hero and praised? The actions of USSR in Prague are viewed in a positive light. If Germany was uniformly praising Hitler and building him monuments I somehow doubt Germany would have a lot of friends.

This comes as a surprise to me. Prague is rife with anti-communist monuments. Plaques implore the viewer to never forget about the scourge of totalitarian rule. Free anti-communist movies were on display in the park.

I was a tourist; I'm not disputing what you said.

All of the above I said about Russia, the surprising part is having a pro Russian president in the Czech Republic.

Heh, just give it time[1]. The EU is bringing back Nazism all over the place: Greece (3rd party officially), Austria, Hungary, France and now Germany.

[1] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/09/germany-vote-results-1...

The EU isn't bringing anything, its citizens are fed up by the results from choices from own leaders.

Every action has a reaction.

I've been living in the czech republic for almost two years now and I haven't seen more anti-communist people than here.

Sorry for the late reply.

This is bullshit. Yes there are some people who praise him as a hero, and quite a number of those who does not see him as a hero, but does not view him as a murderous dictator either - it's more like "yes, he did horrible thing we should remember through our lifes, but he did what was necessary for the country". This view is very debatable\questionable, but still has it's right to be.

Most of the people view him just a historical figure without giving in to some deeper thought. Same as for Ivan IV The Terrible, or Peter I The Great (yes, he did much for the country and basically made it up to european standarts, but still was what you'd call a bloody dictator)

>The actions of USSR in Prague are viewed in a positive light

Same as above - this can be applied to 10-15% of population at most.

> I am not clear on the basis of Russia's expectation that they're going to get their hacker back soon.

That expectation probably has nothing to do with the law or legal means.

Well they can at least ask.

On a simple basis that guy is not a hacker, but a completely innocent gigolo, grappled by some career-eager US spies.

Ahh, the old Kenneth Lay argument. Good luck with that!

You should read the article to the end. It apeears that I am right.

Where do you get those check marks from? There is not a single word in the article that has a proof of what he did.

Imagine if Russia captured US citizen in Argentina saying he is American hacker who they think hacked Russian servers, I can imagine the outrage of the US and its European puppets.

Also nytimes is incredibly biased against Russia, I would not trust a single word it says.

Did you see a check mark convicting him of hacking? I do not. First you arrest. Then, you arraign. Then, you spend months building a case and allowing the defense to build theirs. Then you try the case. Then you convict.

Would you like me to add a final line: "Dude is convicted of hacking in US: NO CHECK!"? I can, if you think that clears anything up.

Isn't there also a hearing before extradition to determine probable cause? If the US can't provide proof he won't be extradited.

Probable cause isn't the same thing as proof. Proof isn't required for extradition.

> Where do you get those check marks from?

Do you want to dispute any of them? Do you believe the Czech Republic isn't an EU/NATO member, as asserted with the "check"s?

These check marks have a meaning only if they have a proof that he is guilty and is subject to extradition, otherwise they don't mean anything in this context

You're getting downvoted like crazy, but I really think you're just making a simple mistake in interpretation. You seem to think extradition occurs after trial, so that the convicted accused serve their sentence somewhere else. No, that's not how extradition works. The accused is extradited to face trial somewhere else.

I don't think it's so much a mistake as a disagreement with the process of extradition. Government wants person so they can abridge their freedom from across the globe to satisfy the government's belief that they have the right person.

It's understood the trial ultimately determines the person's fate but it does seem like more proof or evidence should be made public before taking a rather rather drastic action like this. They don't have to show their whole hand, but something that is convincing enough that they have the right guy.

Again completely Realize that's not how extradition works it's just it does seem like a raw deal that flies in the face of the U.S. Justice system ideals

In most of the cases we've seen with extraditions to the US for hacking, the burden placed on the US to justify the extradition has been pretty significant. We have in fact lost extradition cases where few of the underlying facts were in doubt.

I'm also not sure how bringing suspects to trial in the US flies in the face of US justice system ideals.

Well in this instance I'm suggesting that the uprooting and deprivation of freedom using foreign law as a basis is unreasonable. I fully admit this is a lay person interpretation and the law likely disagrees, but I would imagine that a more fair process would first let an international court or the local governing body determine in full if they cooperate, not instead have a blanket extradition treaty. Unless I am misunderstanding the entirety of extradition treaties, it just seems the burden of proof that they have the right person to even start questioning is low and not subject to scrutiny except from within.

Most extradition treaties agree with you, and refuse to extradite unless the crime charged is criminal in both locales.

The exception being the European arrest warrant. Assange was going to be extradited from the UK to Sweden for something that is not a crime in the UK. (Failure to use a condom is considered extremely rude but is not a crime in the UK.)

One is generally subject to extradition if they are charged with an offense covered by an extradition treaty (there are often procedural details here, but IIRC they generally don't extend much beyond verifying that there is a minimally plausible basis for the charges, similar to a preliminary hearing.)

Guilt or innocence is determined at trial after extradition; guilt isn't a question to be resolved to determine whether one is a subject to extradition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com