Eric Eoin Marques Extradition (Freedom Hosting) - See Mod warning in first post

MadPat

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes. The Americans are prosecuting him because they believe he has committed a crime in the US.

This raises the interesting topic of whether or not one can commit a crime in the US, whilst not physically being in the US.

Another issue might be if the 'conspiracy to...' or 'facilitating...' charges raised by the US have equivalents in Ireland. In relation to child abuse images, charges here seem to revolve around physical posession and distribution, i.e committing such an offense in person.

Also of interest would be if standards of evidence needed to secure a conviction in the US differ from here in Ireland.

Bogan

Holsten wrote: »

People know they risk being put to death in the electric chair yet people still murder.

Only a fool would think that putting this man in prison for 100 years (which is what the Americans want) would have any effect on the stuff that was on his servers.

Murder can happen in a moment of rage and most aren't premeditated so murders will always happen if there is an electric chair or not.

People running a business involved in hosting sites with a blind eye turned to horrific acts of child abuse and think they can hide behind their Terms of Service Disclaimer now realise they can't and will certainly deter some people.

I agree that 100 years for this is excessive compared to what we're used to but that's US justice. There's no doubt he knew what he was hosting as the Anonymous group demanded he stopped hosting child porn sites. It was all over Twitter telling him to stop. He didn't and decided to buckle down making hosting services on his servers "invite only" and therefore allowing more children to be abused.

MadPat

Bogan wrote: »

People running a business involved in hosting sites with a blind eye turned to horrific acts of child abuse and think they can hide behind their Terms of Service Disclaimer now realise they can't and will certainly deter some people.

Indeed, US-based hosters and service providers routinely scan their servers for illegal content and have a cooperative relationship with the authorities there.

Holsten

It's just an example that deterrence doesn't work for any crime, and especially not this type. Sadly children have always been abused and that will continue no matter what happens to this guy or any others like him.

By making his servers invite only he personally allowed more children to be abused? What?

He had nothing to do with it at all. He was running a service, it's nothing to do with him what people choose to upload to it. Why are the FBI not focusing their attention on the original uploaders I wonder?!

aidan_walsh

He had nothing to do with it at all. He was running a service, it's nothing to do with him what people choose to upload to it.

Thats not true. If you provide a facility that openly lets people break the law, you're also breaking the law. In this case that crime was facilitating the distribution of child pornography.

Why are the FBI not focusing their attention on the original uploaders I wonder?!

Who says they're not?

Bogan

Holsten wrote: »

It's just an example that deterrence doesn't work for any crime, and especially not this type. Sadly children have always been abused and that will continue no matter what happens to this guy or any others like him.

By making his servers invite only he personally allowed more children to be abused? What?

He had nothing to do with it at all. He was running a service, it's nothing to do with him what people choose to upload to it. Why are the FBI not focusing their attention on the original uploaders I wonder?!

He didn't personally allow more to be abused but he gave the perverts (what they thought was) a safe haven to trade and peddle away their images. That would fuel them to get new images all the time to satisfy their sick minds.

MadPat

aidan_walsh wrote: »

Thats not true. If you provide a facility that openly lets people break the law, you're also breaking the law.

Would this mean that the National Roads Authority is liable for speeding offenses?

Holsten

How can it be proven that he knew what was on there? As far as I can tell Freedom Hosting had tons of .onion websites, just a few bad apples that decided to use it for darker purposes.

Bogan

Holsten wrote: »

How can it be proven that he knew what was on there? As far as I can tell Freedom Hosting had tons of .onion websites, just a few bad apples that decided to use it for darker purposes.

It's up to the prosecution to prove it in a court with hard evidence and they must have had some evidence to bring the matter to this stage.

He certainly did know because of Anonymous and it being all over Twitter and instead of removing the sites brought to his attention he allowed them to continue and changed his business model to invite only. But that's not evidence that could be used in a court.

Holsten

It will be interesting to see what eventually happens to him. To me it seems very revenge driven to go after him now. The FBI have gotten what they wanted - Freedom Hosting is now gone.. but what has that really done?

Will the distribution of abuse images be stopped now that FH is gone? Not a chance in hell.

As I said before, nothing to be gained from locking this man up. If he had been filming away then yes. I hope the Americans don't get their hands on him anyway.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

drunkmonkey

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How can he be sent to America for doing something while living here, he owned a hosting company that hosted all kinds websites.
Anyone can get to kiddy porn through a bog standard Eircom connection, should we extradite the CEO?
The UK is about to make rape porn illegal, some is real but it's mainly fantasy, do we start extraditing citizen on the UK's request, as it's a crime over there?

This case can't end in just a simple handover.

dalta5billion

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How can he be sent to America for doing something while living here, he owned a hosting company that hosted all kinds websites.
Anyone can get to kiddy porn through a bog standard Eircom connection, should we extradite the CEO?
The UK is about to make rape porn illegal, some is real but it's mainly fantasy, do we start extraditing citizen on the UK's request, as it's a crime over there?

This case can't end in just a simple handover.

What a load of ****e.

Eircom will take down any illegal content once notified. Eircom complies with the Data Retention Act, and provides logs of metadata on receipt of a valid warrant.

Even the Pirate Bay removed child porn, for christ's sake.

dalta5billion

The media has, however, called him 'sole administrator' and 'biggest distributor' of child abuse images, thanks to journalists for the most part being entirely technologically retarded, and too lazy to actually consult a computer scientist to interpret court documents.

Then again, sometimes FBI agents are technologically retarded in their affidavits, and inaccuracies are simply repeated by journalists.

Corkbah

dalta5billion wrote: »

The media has, however, called him 'sole administrator' and 'biggest distributor' of child abuse images, thanks to journalists for the most part being entirely technologically retarded, and too lazy to actually consult a computer scientist to interpret court documents.

Then again, sometimes FBI agents are technologically retarded in their affidavits, and inaccuracies are simply repeated by journalists.

just to clarify - court reporters simply report what is said in court - so don't blame the media, if you notice the quotation calling Marques the "largest facilitator etc etc" was attributed to a member of the FBI who gave evidence on the first day of the hearing (which was a late evening sitting - around 8ish if my memory is correct) - I was not present for the first hearing but got a call about it prior to it happening.

Ps. Im not a court reporter

dalta5billion

Corkbah wrote: »

just to clarify - court reporters simply report what is said in court - so don't blame the media, if you notice the quotation calling Marques the "largest facilitator etc etc" was attributed to a member of the FBI who gave evidence on the first day of the hearing (which was a late evening sitting - around 8ish if my memory is correct) - I was not present for the first hearing but got a call about it prior to it happening.

Ps. Im not a court reporter

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/FBI-most-wanted-pornographer-Eric-Eoin-Marques-lived-a-quiet-life--221143181.html

"The charges relate to images on a large number of websites described as being extremely violent, graphic and depicting the rape and torture of prepubescent children."

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/irish-extradition-sought-in-us-child-porn-inquiry-1.1483262

- makes him seem like the curator of it, doesn't it.

The Daily Mail linked what the general public had, 'facilitator' and 'dealer'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521789/Child-porn-dealer-cited-worlds-biggest-walk-free-Ireland-drops-charges.html

Bepolite

Not everything is black and white, analogies lose something in rendering.

NRA know speeding is going on but not where and when, if a particular road was know for being particularly dangerous the arguably liability might attach.

Ignorance can be a defence but only where it is genuine.

As for the yanks locking him up for a million years, that's their backward and broken legal system, unfortunately there is little that can be done to fix it, it's not a reason not to extradite him if the court deems it the right thing to do.

dalta5billion

Bepolite wrote: »

Not everything is black and white, analogies lose something in rendering.

NRA know speeding is going on but not where and when, if a particular road was know for being particularly dangerous the arguably liability might attach. The argument is that this guy knew, without a shadow of a doubt what was going on, not that he was running a cloud that just happened to have this on it. There is an important and distinct difference.

There is evidence reported in the media, that he was accessing child pornography on this own servers. Ignorance can be a defence but only where it is genuine.

As for the yanks locking him up for a million years, that's their backward and broken legal system, unfortunately there is little that can be done to fix it, it's not a reason not to extradite him if the court deems it the right thing to do.

Couldn't agree with you more. Would be great if you could link about him having viewed the material.

It's fascinating how much Irish media take a bet on someone being guilty. Like having a big picture on the front of the Irish Times of that architect charged with murder recently. Clearly someone at the IT has a good garda source that thinks he's guilty to take such a big bet. (Since when were murder suspects, well before trial, photgraphed on the front pages?)

MadPat

Bepolite wrote: »

The argument is that this guy knew, without a shadow of a doubt what was going on

Is this an offense under Irish law?

Corkbah

dalta5billion wrote: »

"FBI most wanted pornographer Eric Eoin Marques lived a quiet life" - http://www.irishcentral.com/news/FBI-most-wanted-pornographer-Eric-Eoin-Marques-lived-a-quiet-life--221143181.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/irish-extradition-sought-in-us-child-porn-inquiry-1.1483262

- makes him seem like the curator of it, doesn't it.

The Daily Mail linked what the general public had, 'facilitator' and 'dealer'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521789/Child-porn-dealer-cited-worlds-biggest-walk-free-Ireland-drops-charges.html

I dont understand how linking some of the reports is supposed to reinforce your point … the media have only repeated what was claimed in court by the FBI/Counsel for the prosecution ….. he is alleged to have facilitated child porn by allowing it and its transfer to be held on servers which he was allegedly in charge of (is my interpretation of what he is/was accused of) - which in simple terms means he is accused of "facilitating" in the distribution - so if he did nothing to stop it and knew of its existence on his servers its considered facilitating …. in the same way that someone who refuses to co-operate in a criminal investigation can be charged with impeding a criminal investigation.

its a flimsy case in my opinion - but I'm sure the FBI will keep going after him.

- if he is innocent he'll have a massive payout from the media….and the fact that the DPP have decided not to prosecute could be good for him, I would question where the offence happened - cyber crime is a very grey area as far as most people are concerned and this has multiple jurisdictions….. I do find it strange …. do the FBI consider themselves world police or do they consider other police forces inferior/incompetent.

* = the FBI
….they did take control of the servers for around 2 weeks (if my memory is correct), so have an intimate knowledge of the internal runnings of what was contained within the servers.

PS. there is a huge difference between calling someone a facilitator and reporting that someone else called the person a "facilitator" - as regards the comment "makes him seem like the curator" - that may be your interpretation - I view it differently - possibly because of other knowledge I have - I can't say what it implies other than my interpretation is different to yours. (and both could be right or both could be wrong)

Pro Hoc Vice

The relevant irish legislation maybe http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0022/sec0005.html#sec5


Producing, distributing, etc., child pornography.

5.—(1) Subject to sections 6 (2) and 6 (3), any person who—

(a) knowingly produces, distributes, prints or publishes any child pornography,

(b) knowingly imports, exports, sells or shows any child pornography,

(c) knowingly publishes or distributes any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser or any other person produces, distributes, prints, publishes, imports, exports, sells or shows any child pornography,

(d) encourages or knowingly causes or facilitates any activity mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c), or

(e) knowingly possesses any child pornography for the purpose of distributing, publishing, exporting, selling or showing it,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

(i) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or

(ii) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or both.

(2) In this section “distributes”, in relation to child pornography, includes parting with possession of it to, or exposing or offering it for acquisition by, another person, and the reference to “distributing” in that context shall be construed accordingly.

I would think the DPP's decision not to prosecute has more to do with not standing in way of Extradition rather than a belief one way or the other in guilt or innocence.

Section 15 of the a extradition Act 1965 as inserted by section 27 European Arrest Warrant (Application to Third Countries and Amendment) and Extradition (Amendment) Act 2012,

"
15.— (1) Extradition shall not be granted for an offence which is also an offence under the law of the State if—

(a) the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General is considering, but has not yet decided, whether to bring proceedings for the offence against the person claimed, or

(b) proceedings for the offence are pending in the State against the person claimed.

(2) Extradition may be refused by the Minister for an offence which is also an offence under the law of the State if the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney General has decided either not to institute or to terminate proceedings against the person claimed in respect of the offence."

By the DPP saying we not going to charge it gets rid of any section 15 objection. I wonder will the Minister exercise his discretionary powers not to extradite.

Corkbah

infosys wrote: »

The relevant irish legislation maybe http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0022/sec0005.html#sec5


Producing, distributing, etc., child pornography.

5.—(1) Subject to sections 6 (2) and 6 (3), any person who—

(a) knowingly produces, distributes, prints or publishes any child pornography,

(b) knowingly imports, exports, sells or shows any child pornography,

(c) knowingly publishes or distributes any advertisement likely to be understood as conveying that the advertiser or any other person produces, distributes, prints, publishes, imports, exports, sells or shows any child pornography,

(d) encourages or knowingly causes or facilitates any activity mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c), or

(e) knowingly possesses any child pornography for the purpose of distributing, publishing, exporting, selling or showing it,

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable—

(i) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both, or

(ii) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or both.

(2) In this section “distributes”, in relation to child pornography, includes parting with possession of it to, or exposing or offering it for acquisition by, another person, and the reference to “distributing” in that context shall be construed accordingly.

I would think the DPP's decision not to prosecute has more to do with not standing in way of Extradition rather than a belief one way or the other in guilt or innocence.

the other problem the DPP faced was that the servers were on french soil (apparently) - he allegedly has servers in multiple countries but the offending ones that the FBI were involved in are allegedly based in France.

Pro Hoc Vice

Corkbah wrote: »

the other problem the DPP faced was that the servers were on french soil (apparently) - he allegedly has servers in multiple countries but the offending ones that the FBI were involved in are allegedly based in France.

Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act, 1996 may apply depending on what exactly he is charged with, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1996/en/act/pub/0038/index.html,

We are getting in to what are currently very complex areas of law and jurisdiction. But these will all be arguments to be made by both legal teams.

Holsten

dalta5billion wrote: »

(Since when were murder suspects, well before trial, photgraphed on the front pages?)

Huh? All the time! It's trial by media, it's insane and should be a criminal offense.

No naming of SUSPECTS, and that's what they are until convicted.

Peregrinus

In general, there's no [legal] problem about reporting that someone has been charged with murder, or with publishing a photograph of someone charged with murder. Justice is administered in public, and that includes reporting by newspapers of criminal proceedings. A charge is a criminal proceeding.

There is a problem, though, with publishing a photograph of someone who is going to be tried if evidence of identification is going to feature in the trial. So if, e.g. a witness is going to be asked if he can see anywhere in court the person he saw running away from the scene of the crime carrying a bloody knife, it's plainly prejudicial to the defendant if his picture has already been splashed across the papers as the person suspected of the murder. In an extreme case, this can lead to a trial being aborted and the defendant going free, and the newspaper being found to be in contempt of court. So editors are generally leery of publishing such pictures unless they are pretty sure that identification evidence is not going to feature in the trial.

Corkbah

Holsten wrote: »

Huh? All the time! It's trial by media, it's insane and should be a criminal offense.

No naming of SUSPECTS, and that's what they are until convicted.

While I would agree with you - there should be a proper system in place whereby every convicted criminal is photographed and a photo issued to the media for use if/when they are doing a story on the person.

at the moment for many cases justice cannot be seen to be done in public (in my opinion) because the media cannot photograph those in custody - at least not in the CCJ in Dublin…yes members of the public can walk into the courts but only a limited number of people.

Pro Hoc Vice

Peregrinus wrote: »

In general, there's no [legal] problem about reporting that someone has been charged with murder, or with publishing a photograph of someone charged with murder. Justice is administered in public, and that includes reporting by newspapers of criminal proceedings. A charge is a criminal proceeding.

There is a problem, though, with publishing a photograph of someone who is going to be tried if evidence of identification is going to feature in the trial. So if, e.g. a witness is going to be asked if he can see anywhere in court the person he saw running away from the scene of the crime carrying a bloody knife, it's plainly prejudicial to the defendant if his picture has already been splashed across the papers as the person suspected of the murder. In an extreme case, this can lead to a trial being aborted and the defendant going free, and the newspaper being found to be in contempt of court. So editors are generally leery of publishing such pictures unless they are pretty sure that identification evidence is not going to feature in the trial.

That only happens on TV, dock identification is not allowed. The book of evidence should contain in the persons statement, "I saw a man I now know to be Mr. X or i knew it was Mr. X running away from the scene of the crime carrying a bloody knife."

Holsten

Corkbah wrote: »

While I would agree with you - there should be a proper system in place whereby every convicted criminal is photographed and a photo issued to the media for use if/when they are doing a story on the person.

at the moment for many cases justice cannot be seen to be done in public (in my opinion) because the media cannot photograph those in custody - at least not in the CCJ in Dublin…yes members of the public can walk into the courts but only a limited number of people.

So you're up in court for no tv licence you'll be ok with your photo been given to the media? I would be completely against this.

Look at those mugshot sites in the United States... a form of extortion.

Corkbah

Holsten wrote: »

So you're up in court for no tv licence you'll be ok with your photo been given to the media? I would be completely against this.

Look at those mugshot sites in the United States... a form of extortion.

if you are guilty of a crime and its worthy of being printed (in public interest) …then I would have no problem with my face being published.

At best it might deter people from committing crimes - no matter how trivial.

I personally can't see non-payment of a TV licence as newsworthy affair unless I was a person of public importance. (i.e. celeb/politician etc)

how is the mugshot sites in the US a form of extortion ? are they offering to charge people money to not publish or to take down the images ???

Do you think a convicted criminal should be shielded from the public ? and no image published at all ??
Would you prefer to know if a friendly neighbour was a sex offender - would you still ask them to mind kids if that information was publicly available.

Personally I think that the information should be made public - but I also think ANY form of vigilantiasm should be substantial and strong sentencing.

Holsten

I think you're lying, everyone would have a problem with it, I would be pissed. It won't deter anyone, it doesn't now like....People who commit crimes cannot really be deterred in my view, read up on it. Yeah they charge people to remove their mug shots. I think that criminals once they have served their time should be free of everything, so having their picture would not let that happen, thus a de-faco life sentence in
the eyes of the public.

I wouldn't ask any neighbor to mind my kids, I'd be pressed to leave them with anyone. Child abuse happens within the family the vast majority of the time.

So you're open to something that would and does cause vigilantism but strongly against it.. why not prevent it before it even starts?

Simple.

Corkbah

Holsten wrote: »

I think you're lying, everyone would have a problem with it, I would be pissed. It won't deter anyone, it doesn't now like....People who commit crimes cannot really be deterred in my view, read up on it. Yeah they charge people to remove their mug shots. I think that criminals once they have served their time should be free of everything, so having their picture would not let that happen, thus a de-faco life sentence in
the eyes of the public.

I wouldn't ask any neighbor to mind my kids, I'd be pressed to leave them with anyone. Child abuse happens within the family the vast majority of the time.

So you're open to something that would and does cause vigilantism but strongly against it.. why not prevent it before it even starts?

Simple.

you are entitled to your opinion …as much as I have mine !

there are pro's and Con's for naming - it would definitely not deter the recidivist criminals, but would definitely deter the likes of TV licence evaders or litterers, it would however help society identify recidivist criminals - if someones face is being published on conviction each time people will be more aware of who they are and thus be more conscious of their actions when in their presence.

it has its advantage in my opinion - you obviously think otherwise.

Why protect the identity of convicted criminals - no matter what the crime ?

would you prefer to know if there was a rapist living in your area - if you were a teenage girl or had a daughter in her teens or early 20s … would you encourage your daughter to have a social life.

I do think that if society abided by the laws of the state they should endure the consequence of their actions - criminals if convicted should be identified to the public, I would like to be in a position where I could recognise a convicted pick-pocket if I was at an event, so if the person came near me I could protect my belongings.

As I mentioned before I agree with your vigilantiasm point - but that stronger measures to deter this (harsh sentencing) could be a way forward.

I do take on board your point that the criminal could face the consequences a long time after their have served their actual jail punishment - but I also think that this should be par for the course - every action has a reaction - if the person didn't perform the crime they would not have to deal with the consequences….so they should be punished for their choices…..and people choose crime.

Holsten

We're kinda going off topic, I basically disagree with nearly every point you made haha, night and day between us.

I'll just say that everything you mentioned has zero affect on future crimes, especially harsh sentencing, if anything they encourage recidivism.

Anyway I'll keep an eye out for what happens to this guy as it will be interesting to see how it turns out, setting a precedent etc..

MadPat

infosys wrote: »

Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act, 1996 may apply depending on what exactly he is charged with, http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1996/en/act/pub/0038/index.html,
We are getting in to what are currently very complex areas of law and jurisdiction. But these will all be arguments to be made by both legal teams.

That act does not appear to take in offenses under the Child Pornography Act 1998. To me, it seems to relate to so-called 'hands-on' offending committed outside the state or promoting or facilitating such offenses.

Pro Hoc Vice

MadPat wrote: »

That act does not appear to take in offenses under the Child Pornography Act 1998. To me, it seems to relate to so-called 'hands-on' offending committed outside the state or promoting or facilitating such offenses.

The 1996 act could not take the 1998 act into account hence why the 1998 act amends the 1996 act, I do accept that amendment only adds section 3 and 4 of the 1998 act, hence why I said it depended what exactly he is being charged with. Section 5 of the 98 act deals with distribution.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0022/sec0011.html#sec11

I think he could only be charged with section 5 then the question becomes can he be guilty of that offence if in ireland if servers are in France, considering that he must do certain acts in ireland to make the system work, then is the facilitation of the distribution happening in ireland or France or where the info comes from or goes to.

brian_t

Maia Nervous Peanut wrote: »

Any update what happened this fella?

Tuesday 1st July 2014

Today in the High Court in Dublin, Mr Justice John Edwards said he was still working on the “seemingly complex” case but promised to deliver his judgment on Tuesday, September 9, “in the same court”.

https://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/crime-desk/courts/largest-facilitator-of-child-porn-on-earth-must-await-fate

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

Can someone explain exactly how the US can claim any jurisdiction over this case?
Marques was based in Ireland, his money allegedly flowed through Romania and his servers were allegedly hosted in France. From what has been reported, no aspect of any of the alleged offenses committed by him took place on US soil.

In my view, regardless of what one thinks of the man himself or what he is alleged to have done, by allowing an extradition the Irish courts will effectively be facilitating the US government's fantasy that the entire internet belongs to the US and can be policed by the US. It's an incredibly dangerous precedent to set. Unless some aspect of the alleged offense actually took place within the United States, the United States has no right to any involvement.

Little CuChulainn

If someone accesses child porn hosted on site from the US then he they have committed an offence there and he has facilitated them.

hatrickpatrick

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If someone accesses child porn hosted on site from the US then he they have committed an offence there and he has facilitated them.

Is that not a bit of a mad stretch? By that rationale, anyone who views content illegal under US law anywhere on the internet effectively criminalizes the hosting provider. I'd imagine various legal systems would take a very dim view of this concept as it relates to national sovereignty...

Little CuChulainn

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is that not a bit of a mad stretch? By that rationale, anyone who views content illegal under US law anywhere on the internet effectively criminalizes the hosting provider. I'd imagine various legal systems would take a very dim view of this concept as it relates to national sovereignty...

Did you know an American citizen cannot register to bet online with an Irish company?

Pro Hoc Vice

Maia Nervous Peanut wrote: »

Yeah the yanks have some mad law that if us citizens are caught up to no good with kids abroad, they can be brought home and dealt with by the USA. It was on one of them documentaries about Cambodia and them sort of countries, the "Pedophile hunters". It might be a bit of a mad law, but for this carry on I would agree with it.

Back to Eoin Eric Marques. My opinion he knew well what was going on on his servers. It wont matter if Murica can prove this or not, he will get locked up either way because well thats just Murica.

The surveillance/Intel gathering they did on him, I bet you they got zero permission from the Irish authorities or ISPs etc,
(they would prob have been zero use anyway) I dont know how they can use this against him so in America, anyone?
It is really interesting that the DPP are refusing to prosecute him here. Any updates on what happened in court?

So does Ireland.

hatrickpatrick

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Did you know an American citizen cannot register to bet online with an Irish company?

Maybe so, but if they register against the law it's that individual who has broken the law. If the betting company is not based in America nor has any servers or infrastructure in America, they are outside American jurisdiction.

This whole case just smacks of an "anything that happens on the internet is our business" and thus "the internet is our turf" attitude on behalf of the American authorities, and I for one find that revolting. It's the same mindset which they believe gives them carte blanche to collect the entire world's private communications.

Say whatever you like about Marques, but I hope his case collapses purely because I absolutely despise the "the internet is our playground" attitude of the US government, and would love to see them being told to feck off by a judge who recognizes this.

Little CuChulainn

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Maybe so, but if they register against the law it's that individual who has broken the law. If the betting company is not based in America nor has any servers or infrastructure in America, they are outside American jurisdiction.

This whole case just smacks of an "anything that happens on the internet is our business" and thus "the internet is our turf" attitude on behalf of the American authorities, and I for one find that revolting. It's the same mindset which they believe gives them carte blanche to collect the entire world's private communications.

Say whatever you like about Marques, but I hope his case collapses purely because I absolutely despise the "the internet is our playground" attitude of the US government, and would love to see them being told to feck off by a judge who recognizes this.

Really, I'd hate to see [someone charged with child pornograhy offences] get off so we can stick it to the U.S. Personally I see no issue in it where the crime exists in both jurisdictions. The real travesty here is that our weak DPP wouldn't prosecute him even with a promise of a guilty plea.

As to the wider issue, should someone be able to use the advantages of a world wide medium and be able to so easily hide from the consequences? I don't think so. And in the absence of some internationally agreed laws the US are one of the few acting on it. Has it the potential to be abused? Yes. Is it in this instance? No.

hatrickpatrick

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Really, I'd hate to see [someone charged with child pornograhy offences] get off just so we can stick it to the U.S. Personally I see no issue in it where the crime exists in both jurisdictions. The real travesty here is that our weak DPP wouldn't prosecute him even with a promise of a guilty plea.

As to the wider issue, should someone be able to use the advantages of a world wide medium and be able to so easily hide from the consequences? I don't think so. And in the absence of some internationally agreed laws the US are one of the few acting on it. Has it the potential to be abused? Yes. Is it in this instance? No.

If the guy genuinely conspired to distribute this stuff then he should absolutely be prosecuted here, and if he isn't that's our DPP's fault, but in my view nothing justifies allowing the US to say "the internet is ours, anything that happens on it is our business and we have total control over the whole thing even if none of the people or infrastructure is actually within our borders". I'd like to see him prosecuted here and have a fair discussion about liability of hosting providers etc, but IMO the lesser of two evils between letting a potentially guilty man go free and bowing to the US' territorial claim over the entire internet is pretty clear.

Little CuChulainn

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If the guy genuinely conspired to distribute this stuff then he should absolutely be prosecuted here, and if he isn't that's our DPP's fault, but in my view nothing justifies allowing the US to say "the internet is ours, anything that happens on it is our business and we have total control over the whole thing even if none of the people or infrastructure is actually within our borders". I'd like to see him prosecuted here and have a fair discussion about liability of hosting providers etc, but IMO the lesser of two evils between letting a potentially guilty man go free and bowing to the US' territorial claim over the entire internet is pretty clear.

If we were talking about a minor crime I might agree but the scale of what this guy is alleged to have done cannot be ignored. It's likely that his site has not only been accessed from the US but also supplied with material from them with potential victims from there. If this is the case, he will have participated in crimes in their country. I can't see why their jurisdiction should not reach him.

hatrickpatrick

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

If we were talking about a minor crime I might agree but the scale of what this guy is done cannot be ignored. It's likely that his site has not only been accessed from the US but also supplied with material from them with potential victims from there. He has participated in crimes in their country. I can't see why their jurisdiction should not reach him.

So by that rationale, if a US person uses Boards to covertly sell drugs via PM to another Boards user, are Cloud & co liable because they didn't read every PM sent through the platform? That's essentially what this case boils down to. And to be honest it doesn't look to me like the FBI is even taking the angle of US persons being abused or accessing the site, they're just saying "he did this, it happened on the internet, we can prosecute".

Little CuChulainn

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So by that rationale, if a US person uses Boards to covertly sell drugs via PM to another Boards user, are Cloud & co liable because they didn't read every PM sent through the platform? That's essentially what this case boils down to. And to be honest it doesn't look to me like the FBI is even taking the angle of US persons being abused or accessing the site, they're just saying "he did this, it happened on the internet, we can prosecute".

The High Court also previously heard it was alleged that an examination of Mr Marques’s home computer by gardaí showed that as well as hosting and facilitating the child pornography websites, Mr Marques was also visiting the sites, had direct knowledge of what he was hosting and had administrator access to one site.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/facilitator-of-child-porn-refused-stay-of-extradition-proceedings-1.1974415

hatrickpatrick

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No that's not what the case boils down to. They have produced evidence that he not only knew about what his servers were being used for but accessed some of it himself.



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/facilitator-of-child-porn-refused-stay-of-extradition-proceedings-1.1974415

That doesn't explain how the United States has jurisdiction over an alleged crime which did not take place within the United States nor was committed by a US citizen. I am not aware of any international law or treaty which gives the US government universal jurisdiction for the prosecution of sex crimes, crimes committed using the internet, or both.

Little CuChulainn

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That doesn't explain how the United States has jurisdiction over an alleged crime which did not take place within the United States nor was committed by a US citizen. I am not aware of any international law or treaty which gives the US government universal jurisdiction for the prosecution of sex crimes, crimes committed using the internet, or both.

If he participated in crimes committed on US soil, primarily the viewing and distribution of child porn, he falls under their laws.

hatrickpatrick

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

He participated in crimes committed on US soil, primarily the viewing and distribution of child porn, so he falls under their laws.

So by that rationale, any hosting provider anywhere in the world whose services an American citizen uses to commit a crime is suddenly subject to US law themselves? Surely it's the American citizen who uses the service who falls under the jurisdiction of the US?