ITH Poker Forum

[darvon]

oooh ooh can we have a Superinjunction debate?

[Piemaster]

Pie, what are the Superinjunctions?

Injunctions (of which there are several types, including regular, super, ultra and probably others) are where a court makes a ruling that the media are not allowed to publish a story. It was initially intended as a means to prevent situtions where (for example) someone's life may be put in danger by a story being published, but they have since expanded in their use to include a number of high-profile cases where celebrities have had an injunction taken out to stop stories about their private life being published in the media.

A further complication is that 'the media' also includes self-publishing outlets like online blogs and Twitter, which has led to farcical situations whereby a story is widely known by the public, but due to injunction regular Joes talking about it on their Twitter account can be prosecuted for contempt of court. It has opened a big can of worms regarding freedom of speech and what constitutes 'the media'.

[Dogs]

An article that might interest Darvon:

Why super-injunctions don't happen in US

To add to what Pie wrote, my understanding of a regular injunction is that it prevents a story being published, whilst a super-injunction prevents acknowledgement that the story even existed in the first place. The thing that I find most ludicrous about them is that an MP can use "parliamentary privilege" to break an injunction / super-injunction in the House of Commons, which can then be widely reported.

[Piemaster]

I am very disappointed that the US feel they have the right to chase after anyone they wish that they deemed has 'wronged' them, regardless of whether or not they have committed a crime within their borders. They have a right to throw the book at the guy who leaked the information, but not someone who published this second-hand information.

I don't think Assange will be prosecuted for publishing the information. I suspect the investigation (I assume there is one) is trying to discover if he directly encouraged, induced or assisted Manning in getting the information in the first place - for which he could, and probably should, be prosecuted.

There's a lot of difference between ecouragement, inducement and assistance and the various forms of the above. What forms of 'encouragement' or 'assistance' do you think should constitute grounds for a prosecution?

I think the requirement to restrict prosecution to those who have actually committed a crime within your borders is a bar set too high. Can we not prosecute Chinese copyright bandits, pirates on the high seas, or al-Qaida operatives?

That's a lot of very different example you've used there:

Copyright bandits - I'm no expert on copyright law, or where China sits with it, but as far as I'm aware copyright is based on international agreements regarding intellectual property. So if somebody in China infringes on a US copyright, they are breaking Chinese law. As I said, I'm no expert, but I imagine that where to go from there is dictated byt he agreement between the two nations.

Pirates on the high seas - A tricky one as international waters are protected by their own set of international agreements which I don't know the ins and outs of. You probably have a much better idea than me, based on your long career

al-Qaida operatives - Massive can of worms, where law enforcement gets mixed up with war and the rules of engagement. It's a tough sell that the US should be allowed to prosecute members of Al-Quida who have not yet committed any crime against the US.

A more interesting example exists in the case of computer hacking. Concepts of 'location' become rather fuzzy when you are talking about cyber crime. If someone sitting in London hacks into the Pentegon are they committing a crime in the US? You could make a strong argument that they are, but you would find plenty of people here rupulsed by the idea of a UK citizen being tried in a US court having never set foot in the country.

A good litmus test is to imagine the situation in reverse. Imagine a guy in the US managed to acquire and publish sensitive Russian government documents on a blog. Should they be extradited to be tried and imprisoned in Russia?

[Bullajami]

There's a lot of difference between ecouragement, inducement and assistance and the various forms of the above. What forms of 'encouragement' or 'assistance' do you think should constitute grounds for a prosecution?

I agree, there are obviously degrees of each and whether a particular situation crossed the threshold of criminality would be up to the interpretation of the court. I was intentionally vague so the reader was free to contemplate the situations in which these would apply.

That's a lot of very different example you've used there:

Yup.

A good litmus test is to imagine the situation in reverse. Imagine a guy in the US managed to acquire and publish sensitive Russian government documents on a blog. Should they be extradited to be tried and imprisoned in Russia?

Well done. My opinion is that if the US citizen did something to Russia that would be a crime had he done it to America, then he should be extradited. So the publishing would not be extraditable, but the method of acquisition might be. Which is ironic, since my job is to acquire sensitive information foreign governments don't want me to have, although I don't publish it to my blog.

[darvon]

My opinion is that if the US citizen did something to Russia that would be a crime had he done it to America, then he should be extradited.

OK. Either I am reading this backwards or I absolutely disagree.

If Person 1, a citizen and resident of Country A, does something to country B, which is against Country B's laws, then I OPPOSE Country A extraditing Person 1 to Country B.

About a zillion examples, spies, soldiers, etc on one side. Tax evaders, and more on the softer end. A citizen of Country A can't control the laws of country B, thus can be in violation at the whim of Country B.

I have swam in the ocean in Hawaii, I believe that violates North Korea's territorial waters claim. Please don't deport me.

=============================================

Person 1, a citizen and resident of Country A, does something to Person 2, a resident of Country B, which is against Country B's laws, then Country A may or may not extradite Person 1. Depends on the crime, and whether it is considered a crime, and the severity thereof, in Country A.

Breaking a SuperInjunction should not get me deported to London, unless it's during Theatre season.

===========================================

Crimes against America by American law, committed somewhere else (other than cybercrimes, where locality is fuzzy), are not criminal, else American law is in effect everywhere and the concept of Jurisdiction is moot.

Actions against America, committed somewhere else, may require Military Action, but not Legal Action. Unless governed by multinational treaty of Country A and B.

[Bullajami]

OK. Either I am reading this backwards or I absolutely disagree.

I think you're reading it backwards.

I have swam in the ocean in Hawaii, I believe that violates North Korea's territorial waters claim. Please don't deport me.

This isn't a violation of US law, so I wouldn't deport you.

=============================================

Breaking a SuperInjunction should not get me deported to London, unless it's during Theatre season.

Breaking a superinjunction isn't a violation of US law, so I wouldn't deport you.

If you wired someone in France $100 million to steal the Mona Lisa, I would deport you.
If someone wanted to steal secrets from France, but couldn't make a CD on the computer where the sensitive information was maintained, and you e-mailed him a software hack that defeated the security system so he could burn CDs full of secrets, I'd deport you.
If someone sent you some sensitive Russian documents and you told him you wanted more and he said he didn't want to send more, so you told him you'd expose him and his original crime if he didn't get you more, I'd deport you.

[Piemaster]

Breaking a SuperInjunction should not get me deported to London, unless it's during Theatre season.

That's the stupid thing, you wouldn't be breaking British law by doing so, the law only applies to material published in the UK (actually not even Scotland, just England and Wales). So anyone in the UK can read the story that the court system has gone to so much trouble to prevent them from reading by performing the highly complex workaround of going on the internet and opening a foreign news page.

[darvon]

darvon wrote:

I have swam in the ocean in Hawaii, I believe that violates North Korea's territorial waters claim. Please don't deport me.

This isn't a violation of US law, so I wouldn't deport you.

But it IS a violation of North Korean law (or at least territorial waters) so why wouldn't you deport me?

=============================================

If you wired someone in France $100 million to steal the Mona Lisa, I would deport you. (again, you are doing the "fuzzy locality" example). What if he came over here a got a briefcase of money? If I do something prohibited by French Law, but not US law, to a French National in the US, would you deport me?



Your examples are either "fuzzy/joint locality", or crimes against the foreign state by an act which would also be a crime if done against the US, in the US.

If someone sent me Russian documents, "let's pretend" that in Russia it is illegal to print state documents that were freely given to you. In America, if I get papers from the Pentagon and publish them in the NYT I get a show on NPR.

So if someone freely gave me Russian Documents and I published them in the NYT, would you deport me?

I can't see an action that wouldn't be a crime against a foreign national in the US being deportable when it is done to a foreign state in the US.


All of these are covered by multinational extradition treaties, which have some level of review and set some bounds.

If I were making the treaties up from scratch, I don't think I would extradite for something performed in the US which isn't a crime in the US. I would only extradite for overlapping crimes between the two nations (roughly, since definitions vary).

A real good example: In Utah, there are very strict drunk driving laws(let's pretend). An accidental death, not the fault of the driver (like stepping out in the middle of a block from parked cars) while the driver is under the influence is a Homocide (let's pretend). In France, it is just an accident. Driver gets normal french driving citations for drunkeness. Does a Frenchman, drunk, killing a Utah child in a non-fault accident get deported?

[darvon]

Or the very simple case.

If I was in Russia, and found a thumbdrive on the street, and it had state secrets on it, and I came home and gave them to YOU. Would you deport me?

[Bullajami]

My opinion is that if the US citizen did something to Russia that would be a crime had he done it to America, then he should be extradited.

What I am saying is that it would have to be something that would have been a violation of US Law.
The US does not claim maritime boundaries in excess of international standards. So, while swimming thousands of miles from North Korea might be a violation of North Korean law, swimming thousands of miles from the US is not a violation of US law, therefore I would not uphold the North Korean right to enforce their law.

What if he came over here a got a briefcase of money? If I do something prohibited by French Law, but not US law, to a French National in the US, would you deport me?

If he took that money as payment for stealing the Mona Lisa out of the Louvre on your behalf, then yes, I would make you, the American financier, criminal conspirator and accomplice to a theft in France, answer to the French for your crime. Same as I would expect a Frenchman who financed a heist in the US to answer for it in an American court.

If I was in Russia, and found a thumbdrive on the street, and it had state secrets on it, and I came home and gave them to YOU. Would you deport me?

No, finding things on the street is not a crime in the United States.
Now if you knowingly smuggle secrets out of the USA that you've found on a thumb drive in the street - that might be a violation of US law, but how do you prove the 'knowingly' in a US court? Unless you've previously signed a non-dislosure agreement with the US Government I am confident one could beat the rap.
If you delivered the thumb drive to me personally because you knew it contained Russian secrets and I work within the US intelligence community, you'd probably get a medal.

[darvon]

OK. I think I understand your position now.

I only have one thing I still don't understand. How does the 600 lb carp enter into the picture?