As others have noted, the US didn't just make up jurisdiction here or declare that they can prosecute anything anywhere -- the charges include an allegation that he transferred stolen BTC to a US-based company. That creates a crime the US has jurisdiction to prosecute.
It really is time for people to stop being gobsmacked at the idea that once you get entangled with an entity in a particular country, anything you do to or with that entity which violates the country's laws is fair game for them to extradite and prosecute you over. Shouting, "But I didn't do it in your country, I did it on the internet!" does not get people out of that.
Also, given just how much global network infrastructure passes through the US, and the near-impossibility of productively cashing out of most criminal schemes without involving a US institution, people should stop being surprised that their clever attempts to commit the perfect stateless crime are neither clever nor stateless.
You haven't really explained or justified anything. "Them's the rules!!!"
What if Thailand wanted to extradite you because you joked about their king on HN?
You would just laugh, not make a point about "well, what do you expect when you challenge a nation's royal sovereignty? Have some respect on the internet! Thailand takes this very seriously."
People always act like being able to extradite and prosecute for a crime with a connection to your country is some sort of completely unprecedented, made-up-on-the-spot assertion of ownership of the entire world.
But it isn't. If the guy were in the US and had done something illegal and involved Greek citizens or a Greek company, the US would almost certainly extradite to Greece to let them prosecute him. Extradition treaties, and jurisdiction over crimes that involve a country's citizens or other entities of that country's laws (such as corporations it's chartered) are incredibly normal bog-standard boring well-established concepts in law. Nobody should be surprised that this guy is getting extradited.
So: can Thailand extradite you if you happen to say something about the king? Nope. And that's not even close as an analogy. What if you printed a bunch of insulting leaflets and mailed them to your colleagues in Thailand to distribute, and also wired money into a Thai bank to support the campaign, and also hacked some Thai-hosted websites to put up disparaging messages, though? Would you be willing to admit that at least some of that creates a crime under Thai law that you committed, and that elements of what you did took place at least partly in Thailand, thus giving them jurisdiction and a reason to extradite (though extradition often requires both countries to view the act as illegal under their own laws, so the extradition is unlikely to succeed)? I'd hope you would.
But this is HN, where we clutch our pearls and gasp any time the real world teaches us that "But I did it on the internet! There can't be jurisdiction for the internet!" isn't an argument accepted by courts of just about any country.
You would laugh because they have no power to enforce their laws globally, and possibly also because the country you live in has free speech laws that make them unlikely to extradite someone for lese-majeste. The US does have that power and the cooperation of foreign governments.
If someone in Greece had, while sitting in their bedroom in front of a laptop, hacked into a US bank and stolen money, would you be surprised if the US wanted to extradite and prosecute?
The idea that "on the internet" is a magical stateless realm has only ever been an idea in the minds of naïve geeks. It has never been reality.
>> If someone in Greece had, while sitting in their bedroom in front of a laptop, hacked into a US bank and stolen money, would you be surprised if the US wanted to extradite and prosecute?
I'm certainly not surprised the US wants to prosecute, as it seems to want to apply US law to the whole planet.
But I am surprised the in some ways that the system allows it - that person never left Greece. What if the action was something illegal in the US but perfectly legal in the place they are sitting? I don't see that the crime necessarily takes place overseas when what they are really doing is sitting in a room, sending electronic signals from a machine.
>> The idea that "on the internet" is a magical stateless realm has only ever been an idea in the minds of naïve geeks. It has never been reality.
That's not what I'm saying, it's not a stateless realm, but actions taken were not taken in the USA.
I would hope that if you engage in an action illegal in the US but legal in Greece, the Greek government would choose not to extradite, tell the US government to fuck off, and warn you to be careful when travelling abroad.
When one country chooses to extradite someone to another, it's more often because their government doesn't approve of the actions they are accused of either and was presented with sufficient evidence.
It really is time for people to stop being gobsmacked at the idea that once you get entangled with an entity in a particular country, anything you do to or with that entity which violates the country's laws is fair game for them to extradite and prosecute you over. Shouting, "But I didn't do it in your country, I did it on the internet!" does not get people out of that.
Also, given just how much global network infrastructure passes through the US, and the near-impossibility of productively cashing out of most criminal schemes without involving a US institution, people should stop being surprised that their clever attempts to commit the perfect stateless crime are neither clever nor stateless.