Maybe you should re-examine the title of the post and the facts of the article. A Swede, in Sweden, hacked a US server. US law was violated not Sweden's. Do you understand they are two sovereign nations? Can you not see how that is part of the breaking down of national barriers?  I may be looking into it too much but it didn't mention any charges he faced in Sweden, so I assume there are none. I read the title and the facts. What you're not getting is that with treaties in place, the countries can do what they wish. For an example, do you think it's legal to stand on the US side of the Canadian border and shoot at Canadians? No crime is happening in the US, so it's ok right? If you think the US won't extradite you for it, you're dead wrong.     How can a nation subject the whole world to it's laws? It's part of the Republic not an Empire line of thinking, that, I guess, you don't understand. It works because Sweden wants to be able to also prosecute folks in the US who have commited crimes against Sweden. Do you think you can hack into Swedish computers from the US? Not without the risk of criminal and/or civil action. It cuts both ways.    It's noteworthy here that some countries (such as Romania) have NO extradition and NO willingness to work with US authorities on cyber crime issues. This is why you run into so many professional Romanian spammer operations. I dealt with this on a professional basis a few years back, so I understand just a little bit here about why a country would or wouldn't be willing to extradite criminals.