Russian law of extradition If a Russian hacker hacks a computer system in India, can India seek Interpol's help to get that hacker extradited to India? I mean, does Russia allow extradition of Russian nationals to other countries like India, Pakistan, or Sri Lanka?
The Russian Constitution Article 61(1) prohibits this, stating "The citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of Russia or extradited to another state".
Extradition is done for specific charges. A principle found in virtually all extradition treaties called the &quot;rule of specialty&quot; says that the country requesting extradition may not prosecute the defendant for any crimes except the ones for which extradition was granted without the permission of the extraditing country, except for crimes committed after the defendant is extradited. This protection expires once the defendant has been released from jail and had a fair chance to leave the country. The rule of specialty doesn't necessarily mean the other charge needs to be dropped, but the defendant can't be tried for it as long as the rule applies. If they're later in the country for another reason (or don't leave when they have the chance), they can potentially be rearrested for the other crime. But as long as they're only in the country because they were extradited, they can't be tried for any other past crimes without the extraditing country's permission.
This is an interesting hypothetical. In this scenario, Country Z does not have jurisdiction to enforce such a law on foreign nationals, unless Country Z has an extradition treaty with Country A. Generally, however, these types of laws would never be enforced as they are egregious abuses of government, and could possibly be elevated to the International Court of Justice if Country Z actually charges any individuals with such a crime. In these instances, however, war is a very unlikely scenario, since this would often be expensive and any escalation would most likely be small skirmishes that would lead to an eventual ceasefire, with the encouragement of the international community, without the involvement of UN Peacekeeping troops.
They committed the crime of providing material support for terrorism Specifically, 18 U.S. Code 2339A and 2339B. "Material support" is defined so broadly that it captures maintaining the household of an Islamic State fighter. Most countries have similar laws and they are all equally problematical as to their legitimacy. Basically, such people are a giant pain in the ass to their governments and so, their governments are generally content to let them rot in Syrian refugee camps so they don't have to deal with them.
From the article: The FBI is investigating alleged computer intrusion and theft against an unidentified “victim corporation” involving “confidential or proprietary information,” including tests, test forms and internal emails, according to a search warrant issued in the case. The reference to "computer intrusion" is not precise, but may mean that they suspect a violation of some provision of 18 USC 1030, which makes it a federal crime to access a computer without authorization, or to exceed authorized access, under certain circumstances and for certain purposes. So it's not necessarily just a civil matter. Specifically, 18 USC 1030(a)(2) provides: Whoever [...] intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains [...] information from any protected computer [...] shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. Subsection (c) provides for fines and imprisonment for various terms, making a violation of (a)(2) a felony or misdemeanor, depending on circumstances. Subsection (e) defines "protected computer" as any computer "which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication". It seems very likely that the computer in question was used in interstate communication, and that the SAT does affect interstate commerce. The fact that they got a search warrant means that they were able to satisfy a judge that there was probable cause to believe a crime was committed and the search would yield relevant evidence. We'd have to read the warrant, or the corresponding application, to know more.
The order refers in sec. 3(c) to "immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12)". That section specifically names Iraq and Syria, plus "points to" potential areas of concern, as identified by the Sec'y of State and Sec'y of Homeland Security. The full list extends to Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, and is set forth at 81 FR 39680. The cited authority is 8 USC 1182(f), a section about inadmissible aliens, which says Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Thus he has authority to exclude permanent residents from re-entry (they are aliens, and re-entry is a subcase of entry), and has done so for 90 days. In the case of Syrian nationals, under sec 5(c) of the order, they are excluded until the order is changed. Sec. 5(c) of the order specifically declares Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest. The long-term ban on Syrians also specifies "as refugees", so "such entry" might not be interpreted to refer to entry of refugee or non-refugee Syrian nationals who are permanent residents. The 90-day ban in 3(c) ("immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens") does not include any further restrictors, apart from the various government-official visas that are exempted, so there would be no basis in the order for excluding permanent residents. Whether this will be strictly enforced is a separate question, though in the period when the order was active (a day), it was applied to permanent residents. Sec. 3(g) allows exceptions "on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest". A recent (Saturday the 28th) White House briefing says that green card holders "will need a case by case waiver to return to the United States". The ban includes immigrants and non-immigrants, so it doesn't particularly matter how "immigrant" is defined – what matters is what an alien is. Still, "immigrant" is defined in 8 USC 1101 (15) as any alien, except a bunch of categories such as diplomats, tourists, business visitors, people in transit, students, and fashion models and similar, working temporarily here. Any permanent resident has an immigrant visa (but at any rate is an alien, and is either an immigrant or a non-immigrant). Returning to the words of the order, neither 3(c) nor 5(3) limit the ban to issuance of visas, it refers to entry. Not all entry by foreign national requires a visa. The word "visa" is mentioned, so it is possible to construe that mention as contextually restricting the ban to visas, however 3(a) which is entitled "Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern" orders the review "to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA" which indicates that there is no such limitation. 8 USC 1101(a)(13)(C) does say that a permanent resident is not "regarded as seeking an admission into the United States". Admission itself is defined in 8 USC 1101(a)(13)(A), when applied to an alien, as "the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer". While a permanent resident is not seeking admission (and is not applying for admission), it would still be consistent with the law to forbid admission (legal entry). If you read 8 USC 1101(a)(13)(C) as granting permanent residents widest latitude to enter without restriction, then that has the absurd consequence that permanent residents are subject to no scrutiny at all. The absurdity is avoided if "seeing admission" is a step prior to and is distinct from "being admitted" i.e. "lawfully entering".
The existence of a law/legal system is the province of sovereign states. We do not have a world government so there is no world legal system. There is such a thing as international law, however, that is based on what the sovereign nations of the world agree is international law (usually in a treaty) and the degree to which they have implemented them in domestic law. For example, the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over US nationals because the United States of America has refused to ratify the treaty that created it. There are also supra-national entities like the EU whose directives are binding on their member states and such states are required, as a condition of their membership, to enforce such directives domestically. A sovereign state's courts will decide when a person and their activities falls within their jurisdiction based on the circumstances of the particular case. For example, an Australian citizen can be prosecuted in Australia for paying a bribe to a foreign official in a foreign country even while working on behalf of a foreign company even if such activity is locally lawful. Why? Because Australia is a sovereign nation and it says it can. Sometimes it is impossible for a person to comply with the laws of multiple nations. For example, if the EU requires that certain data about their citizens is to be made confidential but the laws of the USA require a US corporation to disclose this information then it is impossible to comply with both. A person in such a position must decide which laws they will break. It is partly for that reason that multi-national corporations are usually multiple corporations i.e. they have a different corporate subsidiary in each jurisdiction (tax is another reason). For example, if all EU citizens do business with Google (Europe) then Google (USA) can rightfully claim that it has no data about European citizens to disclose.
It's possibe to cover auto-starting apps and cookies under the definition. I'm not convinced and could argue against that but I don't think it matters. The tiny extract you linked isn't a law. It is a definition. It does not say &quot;these things are illegal&quot;. For that, we have to zoom out a little. Section 43 includes the offense in question (emphasis mine): If any person without permission of the owner or any other person who is incharge of a computer, computer system or computer network... introduces or causes to be introduced any computer contaminant or computer virus... So back to the question. Could Steam be considered a virus? Maybe. Is it illegal? No. On the other hand, if I were to gain access to your computer and download Steam, yes that could be an example of breaking that law.