Slashdot Mirror
US Busts Military Network Hacker
yorgasor writes " KATU has an article announcing the case of a mysterious hacker who has broken into roughly 100 military networks has been solved. The hacker is a British citizen and authorities were considering extradition for the case. Although no networks containing classified information were compromised, they do consider the hacker to be a professional rather than recreational due to the large number of networks he hacked."
Huh? Something must have been left out of the blurb. If I wank 100 times a day to porn, does that mean I'm a professional wanker?
[o]_O
couldn't have been anything THAT serious
Any military insiders/Brit HaX0rs care to describe some US Military systems?
Wow! It took'em 100 or more tries to notice something was not quite right?
They probably had to bait and switch to catch him...
Obviously a pro, anyone who bats higher than 100 hacks is destined for the pros. Is there sponsorship for this wonderful sport of hacking?
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
He must've been looking for the secret blueprints for the prevention of tooth decay...
I know the military is a big target and all but 1 GUY, 100 NETWORKS? Those military network security folks must be pretty lame. Seems like the could have tracked him down a lot sooner if they knew what they were doing.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
I think he'd better take a much needed vacation. I'm tired of hearing about crackers going to jail. The Falkland Islands are rather nice this time of year.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
calling crackers hackers?
Does that come with a 401k plan and a good dental plan? It still probably has a better retirement plan than Enron :P
Here's a link to the story on Yahoo!
/ 20021111/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/hacker_investigation_1
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap
He must have been pretty damn good to evade capture and continue to crack 100 sites. Makes me wonder home they caught him. If you are a professional and can break into 100 US military sites, what's to stop you? I figure if you are good enough to crack 10 or twenty without messing up, they are probably not going to catch you.
Anybody have any good stories of catching elusive hackers, or insights into how they might have got him?
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
His name is: Thomas C. Greene in San Francisco
This is a ploy by the Vultures at El Reg
All your bases are belong to us...
Tournament Management Online &
It will be interesting to see if the US are actually able to extradite a Brit for having commited cyber crimes. Wouldn't the penalties be a fair bit harsher over the pond than in Europe?
ISO certified == THX certified
Why not just extradite them? The US has a extrdition treaty with Russia I'm sure. Now I'm not saying that arresting them was "wrong", but why resort to deceptive law enforcement tactics like this?
Throw some military sysadmins to a court-martial for dereliction of duty!
Ok, don't be that harsh on them. Scare em a little, then let the go with a warning. But national western militaries cannot continue to run their networks like this. It's dangerously irresponsible.
For a national military to assume they can use police arrests (force of arms) to secure their networks is folly. Armed force only works against attacks that are perpetrated from inside your range of military dominance. For the US that's a big area, but there's still many places where they can neither call in a SWAT team, nor direct an unmanned plane to assasinate the target.
If this fellow had been a professional (earning money from these hacks), then he'd be living in a secret compound provided by his employers in Iraq/Korea/China. True, the internet bandwidth isn't that great there, but a good hacker doesn't need it. He can just compromise some broadband PCs in the US or UK (possibly with the help of an agent on scene- a retailer who sells trojaned machines for instance) and use that to leapfrog to the real targets.
(If this guy was any good, we'll find out that this British suspect was just a patsy)
One big argument against more stringent computer-crime laws in the US is that they permit businesses and the military to postpone installing real network security. Why bother defending yourself, if the FBI just busts the punks for you?
This sets us up for disaster in 20 years, when the economy really needs the internet to survive day-to-day, and China has caught up to our 2005-era connectivity levels. If President Bush the 3rd angers China and they set 200 top computer professionals at making mischief, the damage could be real.
("Vaccinate now! Free Heckenkamp")
He was just looking for Halle Berry pr0n. :(
Karma: Excer..ex...excellahhh...realll good (mostly affected by drinking not done in moderation)
Closed Source
Admin'd by a Private Buisiness
Secured by Microsoft
Run by volunteers at each polling place.
Kinda makes you wonder if you really did/will vote, eh?
If this guy does get extradited to the US, I bet he'll be working for someone in a five-sided building real soon.
Way too broad. This criteria fits most of the members on /., myself included.
live(free) || die;
Um, dude, all terrorists carry "AKs." Was this guy carrying an "AK"? No. Give him a break, he was just a British dude who probably had code red or something.
All y'all is fuckin' wrong! 915 in da hizouse!
The article was vague. Maybe he made a mistake and gave the investigators something that identified him. Equally likely, maybe the infosec guys decided the payoff for letting him continue hacking for a while (firm up the evidence for a conviction, be able to convict him for more serious offences, and most importantly figure out what his motives and techniques were) was more important than having him arrested immediately.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Remeber hackers have an ethics clause built into their "contracts" . Once broken you trade it health plans for orange jumpers and the chance of having your manhood "rooted". I hope he gets a cell big enough to count the days in binary on his wall.
Did he strike terror into your heart? No. Then hes not a terrorist. Had you not been on /. tonight you would never even have know about him. Not very scarry. Definitly not terrifing.
"He is probably a dirty, greasy, long haired linux hippie freak, who smells REALLY bad and hasn't taken a shower or left his parents basement in 5 years"
Don't you mean "GNU/Linux hippie freak"
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
Maybe he was armed by an AK77?
No, it isn't. Terrorism is the use of violence and/or threats to frighten a civilian population, to coerce or punish them.
They should just scrap the term hacker and call him a terrorist, because thats what breaking into the US millitary is, terrorism.
Would breaking into British Military also be terrorism? How about Iraq?
There is a difference between breaking into a companies network out of curiosity and breaking into a millitary network. At worst, it could be considered an act of war from the country where the hacker originated against the country that was hacked. This would be bad for britain as they are totally dependant on America for support and are controlled by America's millitary policy.
Britian is dependent on the US? Tony Blair certainly is Bush's Yes Man, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are dependent on us, or controlled by our policy.
100 successful hacks is quite impressive, and it's good to see that America's war on terrorism is paying off and this man was caught before he could have caused serious damage to the western world.
Yes. The war on terrorism is paying off, just like the war on drugs. We prevented this guy from breaking into *every* military network, just like we've taught kids to 'Just Say No' and quelled the importation of millions of dollars of coke and dope.
Thank you Geoilrge Bush, and God Bless Amerika!
Yes, I know, IHBT,IHL,HAND - I just wanted to practice my italics and paragraph tags.
I'd be awfully surprised if there were such a treaty -- here's a reference that there's not There's still a pretty big difference in each's concept of justice, and they were bitter enemies until a few minutes ago.
There's no problem with deceptive law enforcement so long as it is not entrapment or go so far as to violate the constitution. For many types of crime it is the only practical way to get a collar. It depend son the circumstances. One of my favorites were a bunch of guys who owed child support; the cops had arrest warrants and called them all to tell them they'd won the lottery and all they had to do was claim the prize. It was a slaughter....
Interestingly, some countries are unwilling to extradite to the U.S., Russia, or other countries that practice capital punishment. This is a background issue re 9/11 prosecutions.
Wow, you're an angry dick.
if you knew it was a troll
why did you repond
are you a fucking idiot???
this man was caught before he could have caused serious damage to the western world Firstly he wasn't hacking into anywhere where he could cause any damage and secondly after 100 hacks I think its safe to say he wasn't really out to do anything that damaging. And anyway I would like to know how you manage to justify calling him a terrorist, he didn't gain access to any classified networks, he didn't destroy any of the networks he broke into and most importantly I fail to see how any of his actions could possibly result in terror of any kind.
Bah you wouldn't have stood a snowflakes chance in hell with out the Russians and you know it.
They should just scrap the term hacker and call him a terrorist, because thats what breaking into the US millitary is, terrorism.
I see american propaganda has had a wounderfully successful effect on you
...the British have TWICE attacked the United States for no good reason and lost. OK, it's been a few years, but do we KNOW this guy wasn't OSS? The British have been known to carry grudges.
Seriously, I would not argue that Britain is totally dependent on the U.S., and certainly not control by our military policy (they can defend themselves against, um, the French?). It just looks that way because they're the only ones (the gov't anyway) who agree with the U.S. half the time on international issues.
If this fellow had been a professional (earning money from these hacks), then he'd be living in a secret compound provided by his employers in Iraq/Korea/China.
Of course, this falls into that Bondian good vs evil bullshit.
You have to worry about your allies like Israel which has been conducting missions in the States as if it was Egypt as much as your enemies.
Merriam-Webster says "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". I'm surprised the US gov't hasn't forced all dictionaries to broaden the definition.
Actually having a box cutter and a knowlage of how to navigate an airplane is all that was needed to cause the biggest terrorist act in history
calling hackers crackers?
So, a guy from Iran who breaks into just one military computer is a recreational terrorist, right?
It said, "this is just practice"
are you a moron?
respect
"All your base are belong to us". Please, when posting shitty jokes, at least post them correctly.
"Hey brother Christian with your high and mighty errand / your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you're saying"
They should just scrap the term hacker and call him a terrorist, because thats what breaking into the US millitary is, terrorism.
Wow, that's a pretty extreme definition of terrorism.
There is a difference between breaking into a companies network out of curiosity and breaking into a millitary network.
hmmm... Are you saying that morality can be judged as a function of whether or not a particular act is committed against the state or a private company? I agree that if info. had been stolen that it would be a very bad thing, but since nothing broken into was classified ??? I'm not sure we know that he did anything other than make some web/sys admins look bad.
I can tell you right now I would not be amused if someone hacked into my systems because they were curious. I wouldn't take any legal action unless someone actually took intellectual property, but I'd probably 'hack' my sysadmin a new one!
All of that being said, I say hang him upside-down for 20 years and then turn him rightside-up for another 20.
porn*! - hanging upside-down for almost 20 minutes now!
thes man uses lunix! Note he si fat as a slummy slug and he smells liek a trash bin
No, he is a criminal, not a terrorist. The men who piloted aircraft into the towers were terrorists; the men who shot people at random in the D.C. area were terrorists.
Terrorism is the practice of terrorizing a populace to get a desired result. By using the label wrong, as many people are tempted to do nowadays, you rob the word the emphasis it deserves when it's used correctly.
As far as I know (which is only what I read in the posted article), he didn't terrorize anyone.
So if I scaled a fence and went for a walk on a military base just out of curiosity, that would constitute terrorism? Man, I'm glad I'm not from your country as you are certainly ruled by extremists!
Tsutomu Shimomura takes the credit and turns it into a book and a movie... just to make some extra cash.
The war on terrorism has not / is not paying off. To an even greater extent the war on drugs is not paying off. clearly you eat shit all day.
Well said.
it's good to see that America's war on terrorism is paying off
I'm still waiting for the US to really start fighting a war on terror. How are those Irish-Americans (voters) going to react when the US starts launching unmanned drones and killing members of the IRA with Hellfire missiles?
fuck you, gringo dog!
714, digga dog dang diddly-o
word to your mother
and her little dog, too
military cyber-guards.
.mil and *all* of it was easily readable by the viewer....
I was watching this discovery channel documentary and there was this military type, jar-head cyber guard guy. He was standing there talking about how they monitor all the traffic on their networks, and keep a close eye out for any signatures of attack.
He was stressing how secret they keep all their information about their networks - that they dont let anyone know even their IP sets assigned to different networks, and that this information could help an attacker find out the machines they would need to attack.
The whole time he was talking about this - he was standing in front of a bunch of monitors, and the ones to the left of him was scrolling some sort of log and it was showing IPs to hostname mappings and some traceroutes as well. They were all in the really low IPs - and their hostnames were all
and i do not think it was something that was done on purpose and made to look like an accident. Not by the way these people were acting.
especially since they avoided filming any of the screens that people were working on.
So I am not too surprised.
Sleeping with a lot of men/women makes someone a slut; it requires getting paid for it to be considered a professional.
They should just scrap the term hacker and call him a terrorist, because thats what breaking into the US millitary is, terrorism.
The term "terrorist" has certainly been overused in the past year or so, but what many people don't realize is that it actually has a strict legal definition. (Well, actually several strict legal definitions, depending on the jurisdiction you're paying attention to at the time.)
Way back in 1937, the League of Nations defined terrorism as, "All criminal acts directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular persons or a group of persons or the general public." So under that definition, an act is terrorism only if it's specifically intended to create a state of terror. September 11, yes. This guy, no.
In 1999, the UN defined terrorism this way: "Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them." So here to we have the idea that the act must be specifically intended to invoke a feeling of terror. So by that definition, too, this incident is not terrorism.
The USDOD defines terrorism to be, "The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." Once again we have the idea that the act must be calculated to cause fear. If an act merely incidentally causes fear or terror, it's not strictly terrorism.
Since 9/11, laws have sprung up in several US jurisdictions making it a crime to plan, enact, or carry out any act designed to produce a fear response in the population. In fact, the DC sniper suspects are being indicted in Maryland under just such a law. But all of these also have the same basic thread: that the act must have been done with the specific and deliberate intent of causing fear.
So no, what this loser did isn't technically terrorism.
At worst, it could be considered an act of war from the country where the hacker originated against the country that was hacked.
Not really. In order to make the leap from crime to act of war, there has to be an element of direct or indirect state sponsorship. An individual acting on his own to carry out a criminal act-- even a horrible or devastating one-- in another country does not automatically constitute an act of war. But if another government sponsors the act, that's a different story. The basic idea here is that war is a state of armed conflict between nations, not between groups or individuals. Rhetorical shorthand aside, the United States could never be in a state of war against al Qaeda, or against Osama bin Laden personally. The concept of war can't be applied to those sorts of conflicts in any meaningful way.
I write in my journal
Actually its called weekend warrior,
Hrm, "they do consider the hacker to be a professional rather than recreational due to the large number of networks he hacked."
/. reader? This is so cool! I thought I was unemployed, but no, here I am, practicing my profession *right now!* Rawk!
Wow, I guess I'm a professional
What do they teach you Americans in highschool?
Disgraceful.
That's the stupidest excuse I've ever heard, you retard. Just admit you're a reactionary little child who can't control his temper even when he knows he's being manipulated.
Why don't these people just share the data they find, I mean leech everything and put it up to a porper distribution place (the same place you download movies and music from).
where millions upon millions of US Taxpayer dollars go: To keep military networks secure!
Seriously, I don't think that the guy was trying to completely keep his identity a secret. If something is easy enough to hack, there is no fun. I used to play around with my school's network (causing no damage). But since the network security was so easy to break, I leave their network alone and only use their computers when I have to (they are slow Win98 machines anyway).
Gee, I guess deadpan slips by some people a little too easily? I thought I put in enough hints. Read it again, slower....
Actually, by the Patriot Act, hacking IS an act of terrorism. I forget the exact wording of it, but any attempt to gain access to a government computer system is considered a act of terrorism.
Thank you Geoilrge Bush, and God Bless Amerika!
Look at this, it's obviously flamebait! I hope m2 bites you on the ass
clearly.
Tony Blair certainly is Bush's Yes Man
Let us not forget, Mr. Blair was also Bill Clinton's Yes-Man.
Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
"It is not in the hands of those that cast the votes, but in the ones that count them."
I assure that my original post was written in the clearest of mind and calmest of spirit. You sound like you could use a drink. Good Day.
And check out the idiot posters...
Amazing what is considered "insightful" these days. This knuckle-dragger seems like he is barely able to understand how fire works, much less a keyboard.
'millitary' is correctly spelled 'military'.
'thats' should actually be written as "that's".
He also needs to learn what the [SHIFT] button is for.
Others have already reiterated the definition of terrorism. I would just like to point out that the United States Military is hardly a bastion of nobility. For such things as exposing american citizens to nuclear fallout or toxic gases, I really don't get to worked up about hacking until bullets are flying.
So go wave your stupiÈâáag. You are proof that ignorance is bliss...
Something like a threat to bomb Iraq? Before you go apeshit, think: the US comes in, bombs, leaves and then the civilian population has to live another 11 years in poverty before the next wave. So, civilians DO get hurt in the process, albeit not directly.
You can bet your sweet ass that was sanitized screens you where looking at. When I worked in the navy command center we where frequently visited by the press and if they had camera's we threw bogus stuff on the screens to sanitize the area before entry. So what you see is completely bogus smoke and mirrors.
Got Code?
The war on drugs really limited a lot of drug use. If you are of the opinion that drug use is bad, then the war on drugs did _some_ good. It's too bad that it wasn't 100% successful, kids should find some way to entertain themselves besides killing brain cells...I know kids who don't smoke or drink, but write code or actually learn stuff. Whatta concept.
.mil sites' data to kill people...well that's different.
Now a lot of people are saying that this Iraq stuff is all about oil. I guess you might think that - and Bush's background in oil might make it seem plausible. And yeah, if ol' Saddam does get killed in an upcoming war, and we (USA) do have to manage Iraq for a while, we probably will get better prices on oil and gas.
But it isn't just about oil. If Bush wanted to fight wars over oil, why aren't we attacking every other terrorist-supporting, oil-producing country? Bush hasn't even mentioned it. Why would we give Iraq back to its people, instead of keeping it as a territory? Now THAT would lower oil prices - steal oil from Iraq-as-a-US territory! yay!
In reality, we're just kicking Sadam out, or at least removing his teeth. He's evil, he's fascist, he kills his own people, his own countrymen... He lives in luxury, while his own public starves. He shoots those who disagree with him. You just said something that wasn't very pro-bush, are you dead? Nope. We're not that evil.
It's not about the oil. If you think it is, you are ignoring several major facts. I don't like just sitting by while women, homosexuals, and children are abused, killed, or whatever. Where people are killed for their race. Where the ruler-for-ever seems to hate most of the rest of the world, and would destroy us all if he had the power. That's not cool stuff, dude. I don't think it's just about oil.
ps - OT - breaking into computers isn't terrorism. I don't think it's too legal, but it's not terrorism. I'm not scared, are you? Nobody's dead yet. Now if it comes out that he planned to use the
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
It's called spheres of influence. There are still US forces in Kuwait, as well as other Gulf countries. Even if the US give Iraq back to its people, it will maintain a presence there. This will help eleviate the concerns that they might have to withdraw from Saudi Arabia. Now look at Afghanistan: it is close to many former Soviet republics that are also oil rich. Coincidence?
They should just scrap the term hacker and call him a terrorist, because thats what breaking into the US millitary is, terrorism.
No, it is not. Terrorism is the use of terror tactics against a civilian population (which presumably isn't able to defend itself). Attacking military targets is perfectly legitimate acts of guerilla warfare, and the perpertrators of such are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, and not this "enemy combatant" category that Bush invented.
So:
* attacking that supertanker the other month - terrorism.
* ramming the Cole - legit.
* blowing up the WTC - terrorism.
* blowing up the Pentagon - legit.
* shooting off-duty US marines in Yemen - legit.
* hacking military bases - legit act of war, or civil crime. Definitely not terrorism.
* dropping a 2000 pound bomb on a wedding party - a regretable accident.
Essentially, any act against a government office or military base would be a legitimate act of war.
Professional (adj) - practicing for a livelihood.
Either this person was making his money from this (which I doubt) or this is another case of "they don't know the what they are saying".
Just like the abuse of the words "theft" and "pirate" in relation to software when no one is permenantly deprived of anything.
These terms are being misused, not out of ignorance (although the ignorance is obvious) but out of a desire to create a false impression and make the crime seem worse than it is.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Well, I laughed. :-)
As far as attacking the rest of the oil producing countries go, we don't have a 'convincing/convienent' excuse. Yet.
I figure that things will happen roughly like this: War on Iraq after 'lame duck' session of Congress is over. Some homeland security stuff mixed in with some education reform (for the kids!/votes) pushed thru Congress, another smaller 'terrorist attack' somewhere visible, maybe on the other coast, war on random terrorist-producing(oil) country. More tax cuts for people who don't need them, maybe some more touchy-feely legislation, go and drill in Anwar, more homeland security powers and rights to seize and detain, and finish up with some more love-in legislation barely covering the dark amendments beneath. Just in time for 2004, and polls, and scared/delighted/one-issue voters!
Whee. I wish I didn't think these things. Cynical, paranoid, ignorant, or trolling, some AC will come along and call me all four.
I just hope I'm not right.
Blowing up the Pentagon with a plane of civilians isn't terrorism?
Dropping a bomb on a wedding party isn't a war crime? Dropping a bomb on the Chinese embassy isn't a war crime (either that, or gross incompetence and inexcusable negligence)?
I'm sorry, but when somebody tries to appear like a civilian before launching an attack meant to intimidate the goverment (random killing of service men causes terror back home in the service families, and thus threatens the government), they are terrorists. It's just as much terrorism as when the paramilitaries attack British servicemen and the RUC in Northern Ireland. You are right though, some acts against the military are not terrorism, but most of the ones you mentioned are.
...who broke into roughly 100 unclassified...
.mil web sites designed to attract Army recruits or something.
Did you folk all miss this phrase? Focus on the word 'unclassified.' This retard probably hax0red a bunch
But it isn't just about oil. If Bush wanted to fight wars over oil, why aren't we attacking every other terrorist-supporting, oil-producing country?
... competitive position
1. Iraq has a sheet-load of oil.
2. Getting all of that oil puts Saudia Arabia in a
3. Between Iraq and a compliant Saudia Arabia, that should just be about enough oil to last us for the next 20-30 years or so.
...pointed out that your description is "redundant".
Last post!
No, it is not. Terrorism is the use of terror tactics against a civilian population (which presumably isn't able to defend itself). Attacking military targets is perfectly legitimate acts of guerilla warfare, and the perpertrators of such are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war, and not this "enemy combatant" category that Bush invented.
1. Your definition of a terrorist act is wrong, neither the UN, not the USDOD mandates that a terrorist act must be perpetrated against the civilian populace to be considered a terrorist act.
2. Actually, the term is "unlawful combatant".
3. Bush did not invent the term.
4. And. no, they are entitled to be treated as unlawful combatants. There is a difference between a soldier sanctioned by a real, legitimate, enemy state, and any radical who picks up a weapon and points it your way. The former is doing his duty, the latter is exactly the kind of action that get civilians killed, and is unlawful.
So:
* attacking that supertanker the other month - terrorism.
* ramming the Cole - legit.
Actually this would be terrorist.
* blowing up the WTC - terrorism.
* blowing up the Pentagon - legit.
Terrorist. I suppose the explosion at the Alfred P. Murrah building was legit, eh?
* shooting off-duty US marines in Yemen - legit.
Terrorist.
* hacking military bases - legit act of war, or civil crime. Definitely not terrorism.
Criminal.
* dropping a 2000 pound bomb on a wedding party - a regretable accident.
Essentially, any act against a government office or military base would be a legitimate act of war.
No it wouldn't. You are exactly wrong.
Basically what he did was sit at a keyboard typing and looking at a screen in, presumably, the UK. At what point was the crime committed? When he hit the return key, or when he viewed the resulting data? I would suggest that is the case, and any prosecution should take place in the UK - there is plenty of existing legislation.
I am sure that someone will start bleating on about the theft of CPU cycles, or whatever. But this is extremely abstract. If the sites were non-secure, then presumably they had public access. If we are going to pass laws that people can only view websites as the designer intended, it may suit the kind of Government idiots that once threatened someone with prosecution for telling them they had an open SQL port with anonymous login on a military server, but is hardly going to promote good design (or be enforceable).
This is exactly the kind of case that makes the notion of a World Court reasonable. But I can just imagine his lawyers going to the EU Courts to argue that (a) the US is refusing to allow its citizens to be subject to the ICC, thus demonstrating that US law is not even-handed, (b) in the present climate of hysteria he could in any case not get a fair trial, (c) that US law is in conflict with EU human rights legislation.
It seems to me we have more to fear from the kind of idiots that go in for the kneejerk "This guy looked at a Govt. site! He is a terrorist!" reaction. The word for them is Stalinists, and the last thing we want is for the delightful security and political policies of the former Soviet Union to gain a foothold in the Republican Party.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
We should free him? Why? He doesn't need us. He's doing such a marvelous job of freeing himself that he shouldn't need our help.
Hey, if I let someone crack into my machine after I commit really incriminating and expensive online crimes, do I get a "Get Out Of Responsibility" card too?
What a load...
-B
Ash and Hickory, straight-grained and true, make excellent bludgeons, dandy for the cudgeling of vegetarians.
Actually, by the Patriot Act, hacking IS an act of terrorism. I forget the exact wording of it, but any attempt to gain access to a government computer system is considered a act of terrorism.
Just because it a law doesn't make it right.
Or as someone once said: Ignorance is no excuse for the law.
Life is too short to proofread.
While I'll agree with that, I have to disagree with the idea that "blowing up the Pentagon" comes under the heading of "guerilla warfare." If you are referencing the 9/11 attacks, I'll point out that an airplane full of civilians were killed in order to make the attack possible. IMHO, that makes the attack on the Pentagon a terrorist action. Damage to the Pentagon was of secondary importance; the primary goal was to instill fear into American citizens. If the folks who comandeered the planes were kept from plowing into the Pentagon, they probably would have been just as happy to head for any available location where they would be able to kill as many people (civilian or military) as possible. If they had attached the Pentagon using some other means (a kamakazi pilot in a single passenger plane, a truck loaded with explosives, etc.) I'd be more willing to accept it as an act of warfare vs. an act of terrorism.
Second, I'll point out that while "attacking military targets is perfectly legitimate acts of guerilla warfare", this is really a moral distinction. "Shooting off-duty US marines in Yemen" might be considered a "legitimate" act of guerilla warfare, in that the guerillas doing the shooting can claim that attacking enemy soldiers is not immoral (though, IMHO, it's not very smart on the part of said guerillas, as they are implicitly depending on non-military factors they hafve no control over to stifle effective reprisals). Despite this, it's unlikely that the civil government Yemen would treat these killings as anything but murder. (Granted, I'm unfamiliar with the current situation in Yemen. Whether or not the government there would abide by their own laws and investigate such killings as any other murder is a seperate issue entirely.)
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Q: How can you tell a professional hacker has hacked into your network?
A: You can't. That's why he's a professional.
100 networks before they caught him? Somebody really should email those military admins something like "man tracert > catch_hackers_really_fast.txt"
You don't know what you're talking about. The International Criminal Court is only concerned with "mass crimes" against humanity, especially this committed by by states.
Try reading ICC Jurisdiction:
1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes: (a) The crime of genocide; (b) Crimes against humanity; (c) War crimes; (d) The crime of aggression.-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
..about this story, is that noone of slashdotters objected this time to use of word 'hacker' as a label to 'cracker'.
Oh well...
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
Classified networks are air-gapped from unclassified networks, which the Internet is by definition.
I love it when some U.S. gov't computer getting hacked makes headlines....The most sensitive info a hacker could ever get would be HR type info.
Yes, and according to the DMCA, copying my CDs into my computer can be considered an act of Copyright Violation...and Theft.
The Patriot Act is as full of shit as half the new laws passed in recent years. Not that we dont' need to protect against terroism, but dont' call a crime "terrorism" when it isn't. Hacking a US Millitary network is a pretty Bad Thing to be doing, but I wouldn't put it in the same catagory as strapping a bomb to your chest and diving through a resteraunt window.
The US Government is too easily excited by hype and buzzwords like that...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
I wasn't that bothered when I saw the headline. However, once I noticed he was British... Nice to see someone's keeping oursides rep up.
In fact, it was the Poles that saved us (1930s Polish hackers won WWII for the allies). Once they gave us Enigma, Germany couldn't win. Once the Russians joined in, Germany couldn't even hope for a draw.
Neal?
hmmm...
Who dibs making bumper stickers?
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
PACKET KIDDIE!! Just kidding, of course, but what if he was? I mean, wouldn't that cast one hell of a doubt upon our military servers? For the #1 military in the world, we ain't secure. What if this guy actually decided to F with us. What if he decided he wanted... say... 10,000 troops sent to Luxembourg, perhaps. Seriously, this guy could have done some serious damage. I bet he will get one of those "Work for us or rot in jail" deals from the US Gov.
Now watch this drive.
I read that book when I was about 14 and I really liked it a lot...
it is based on a true story (I knew someone from the lab where the hacking took place), and it is well written
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
So let me see if I have this right.
The US Military want to prosecute somebody for doing something they've been doing for years ?
As Bill Bryson says, we would have made great communists:
We like queuing
We not materialistic (well, we weren't - we are now)
Until about 1983 the living standard was about the same
"Geoilrge Bush"
This is a liberal idea that has no basis in fact. In the long-term, an attack on Iraq would lower oil prices, which would hurt Bush's supposed cronies. Also, we get very little oil from there anyways. Don't forget about Venezuela, Russia, or any number of other places with large amounts of oil. Even if the middle east was nuked tomorrow, we'd only face an oil shortage from distribution problems, not from diminished oil availability. In other words, it's FUD, but you have to give the liberals credit, they are very good at scaring people.
I dont think its so unreasonable to think that this guy could be a pro, many people have said that just becuase he has hacked tha many networks he isnt a pro, which is true. But i think that it is not unreasonable to assume that for him to be good enough do this, he could well be a pro, even if he wasnt bing payed for these specific hacks.
wish i didnt have to post as an anon coward, but ive forgotten my nick/pass time to sign up again i guess!
The British have been known to carry grudges.
Yep, but only for around 50 years or so; Americans seem to carry them for 200 years.
Shit...
You'd thought they would have told me first before spreading it all over the net.
Still, they have to catch me yet.
See me run...
The present US govt. will not allow the extradition of US citizens by the ICC for the most serious crimes, war crimes, mass murder etc. So why should anyone allow extradition to the US for lesser crimes committed outside its jurisdiction? Either the Bush government recognises that all states and citizens have legitimate cross-border security interests, or it doesn't. At the moment, it recognises them in a very one-sided way (You can prosecute Milosevic, but not Kissinger.) It also has a habit of tearing up international treaties. So why should other states recognise treaties with the US? This is a no-brainer. If Bush wants to be isolationist, fine. If he wants to be internationalist, better. But saying "I can be isolationist in my interests but internationalist when I want something from you" - Tony Soprano government.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
NSA spooks don't worry about things like "some extra cash." He was making a rather decent 6 figure income before he had even heard of Mitnick. Sorry. 15 minutes of fame, maybe. But not "some extra cash."
I agree... my understanding is that attacking military is "ok" in the sense that people in the military, by definition have made a set of clear choices and are prepared to take corresponding action. Civilians on the other hand are by definition considered innocent, since they have not made such choices and may even disagree with them. I'd say that terrorism almost inherently involves a (large) number of civilian casualties, to strenghten the "it can happen to everyone" feeling.
Moz.
see a Text Widget
i wonder how england can extradite a british citizen... doesn't he have the right to stay there because he is a citizen?
Government (including military) organizations can't have honeypots. It's called "entrapment", according to my friendly neighborhood Comm officer.
.mil or .gov domain.
They will, however, quite happily use the data from a non-government honeypot. It just can't be in the
He's evil, he's fascist, he kills his own people, his own countrymen... He lives in luxury, while his own public starves.
You do realize that this of course also applies to the fundamentalistic theocracy of Saudi Arabia? The country where medieval style punishment is still 'ok', women are not allowed to drive, homosexuals simply do not exist, the increasingly larger poorer segment of the population barely has enough food to live of, while the filthy rich 'princes' live in luxury in their palaces
The difference between a friend (Saudi Arabia) and a foe (Iraq) doesn't appear to lie in the extent to which their leadership is despicable, it's about the extent to which they are willing to play along. Saddam wasn't any more of a 'swell guy' when his regime was considered friendly to the western countries...
And yeah, oil makes everything all the more relevant
Moz.
see a Text Widget
I don't want to hear tell about a bunch of bumper stickers etc. trying to save Fredrick.
Just send over a spook and snipe his ass.
Or at least no more than any observation operation set up by police.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
wakeup and smell the bullshit folks.
"hacked" can mean he only looked at them. It does not mean he actually made it into them. Knowing the US Government as I do, he probably pinged them...
And consider, what does it mean to "break into a network?" I know how to break into a computer, but into a network? Perhaps he showed up unannounded at the officers ball...
"The officials declined Monday to say whether this person was already in custody, but one familiar with the investigation, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said investigators consider the break-ins the work of a professional rather than a recreational hacker." Yeah right! There is no such thing as military intelligence. Any script kiddie could have done this and "to see of I could," is the only reason he or she would need. Mafiaboy was a script kiddie. The military couldn't find their ass with a map to it.
How ya like dat?
If you send paratroops in dressed as civilians and force the military to go after people that look like thier own people (and greatly increase the chances of civilian casualties), you don't deserve the same rights as common soldiers.
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
Actually, top military theorists have yet to work out a way in which Germany's 'Sealion' invasion plan could work.
Indeed, Operation Sealion was doomed from the start, the British Isles where never seriously threatened with invasion. Operation Sealion required the defeat of the RAF to establish air superiority over the English Channel, then defeat of the Royal Navy, before a landing could even be considered.
The RAF-Fighter Command held their own against the Luftwaffe, RAF-Bomber Command sunk most of the Rhine Barges to be used for the landings. Costal Command kept the Channel clear of the Germany surface fleet and the Royal Navy chased the German High fleet around the global, either sinking it's ships or forcing them into home waters for the duration of the War.
The Royal Navy defeated the Italian Navy (which was superior in numbers and equivalent in technology to the Germany Fleet. The 'Desert Rat's' (British Army Regulars) defeated first the Italians then the Germans in North Africa, the Italian forces in the Middle East. (It is also perhaps worth mentioning the Italian reputation for cowardice is largely unfounded, faint, thrust, retreat, consolidate was very much the tactics of all sides in North Africa.)
Also what many seem to forget is that prior to WW2, Great Briton (& Empire) was the pre-eminent Military power in the World, in essense it was the Worlds only true super power'. In a pre-WW2 (& nuclear weapons) sense this was measured by the ability to project an effective military force around the world and provide the logistics to maintain a compaign. There was only one nation able to do this before WW2, and that was British Royal Navy. Undeniably the cost of WW2 for Briton was the loss of Empire.
In fact, it was the Poles that saved us (1930s Polish hackers won WWII for the allies).
And then we (all Western Allies) betrayed them.
Don't forget about Venezuela, Russia, or any number of other places with large amounts of oil. Even if the middle east was nuked tomorrow, we'd only face an oil shortage from distribution problems, not from diminished oil availability.
I agree. We've got two+ experts in the White House, how could we have a shortage? We aren't going to nuke anything, we are just going to go in and 'help'. With that help will come a few select buisinesses that will set themselves up well. Frankly, I don't need FUD, I need TUMS. The liberals don't have a monopoly on making fear, uncertainty and doubt.
The British bought time,
The Americans bought material,
The Russians paid in blood.
(Oh, and it's Pyrrhic, not phyrric. Even without the correct spelling, it still refers to Pyrrhus, so you should at least capitalize it as a proper noun. Classical education ain't what it were.)
...
I normally loathe and despise grammar nazis (of which I most emphatically do not classify your post), for a couple of reasons: I don't spel very well myself, and web fora are notoriously lacking in spelling checkers, and I find the thought being communicated more important than the fine details of writing (exception: formal works for publication), particularly in casual forums such as this.
All that having been said, yours is the first such correction I'm actually greateful for. My education was public (which is arguably the antithese of classical these days), and Pyrrhic, while I understand the phrase from having seen it in many contexts where the meaning was apparent, was something I never knew the origin of (and probably wouldn't have managed to spell anyway). So for the first time in the 15 years I've been on the 'net (and perhaps the last), I just want to say thanks for that little tidbit of information
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I'm less concerned that they catch this guy and more concerned that they do something to seal up their networks.
Then who will be safe?
I don't see why the US cares so much about European nations not extraditing dangerous criminals out of anti-American or ICC sentiment or concerns about the death penalty. That goes for the 9/11 terrorists as well.
If the Europeans don't want to see criminals at the hands of the US, let them pay to keep them locked up in cells forever. What benefit does the US receive by ticking everyone off trying to get criminals extradited only to have to pay for trials and possible detention for life. Let those who seem to know better pay to keep them locked up. As long as they aren't out on the streets blowing up cars the US should be happy...
I realize all that. But I don't think Saudi Arabia has plans to kill us or take over that section of the world. So the point is...they are playing along with the rest of the world, they aren't threatening everybody. If they were - and they might be going that way, given their recent show of support for Sadam - it wouldn't be unreasonable to think of action there too.
Look! Look! I got modded down because....why? "underrated". ??? Is it cuz I'm taking a disagreeing stance? Some moderators do use mod points to argue, idn'it great?
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.
* attacking that supertanker the other month - terrorism.
* ramming the Cole - legit.
* blowing up the WTC - terrorism.
* blowing up the Pentagon - legit.
* shooting off-duty US marines in Yemen - legit
A few of my buddies are some place in the Persian Gulf now. I sincerely hope that they come back in one piece...even though they are following rules that none of our enemies follow! Go fuck yourself.
i'm disturbed of your alternating use of the word "legit" regarding war.
legitimacy implies some sort of logical justified reasoning.
war, is anything but legitimate.
as the saying goes
fighting for peace, is like screwing for virginity
-judging another only defines yourself
Put him in a cell block with all of the lameo first posters!
M P. html?ex=1037509200&en=873ff5626a3c666e&ei=5062&par tner=GOOGLE
But, now we have this treasonous bastard, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, who wants to be able to do the same to MY data without a warrant. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/09/politics/09CO
at the damn NYCrimes (you gotta register with Big Brother to see it, sorry). No way! Bust the crackers - both the amateurs and the profressional. Preserve the Constitution. Save the Republican.
DAMN EVIL!!
The KATU link is gone... here are alternatives: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2002/11/12/4200- ap.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/12/10363086 82032.html
There is nothing wrong with yr Internet. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling the transmission - NSA
Just before Hitler was going to begin his invasion of Russia, the Greeks attacked the Italians, forcing the Germans to aid ally Italy and thereby delay Operation Barba Rossa by two weeks. This delay found Hitler's troops in the midst of a cold, brutal Russian Winter, and the Germans were not prepared for such conditions. Recall that the Russians barely won that battle. Napoleon's folly proved Hitler's downfall.
Yes, but then we can't interrogate the terrorists ourselves. We'd be relying on foreign intelligence to tell us what we want to know. This is, of course, assuming that the current administration has any desire to review intelligence that does not support their predetermined course of action.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
Bush may not have coined the term "unlawful combatants" but he did misuse it. Neither the Talaliban nor the nothern alliance wore uniforms yet he decided to call the Taliban unlawful combatants. The Taliban were the "legitimate" side in that country and were not unlawful combatants by wny stretch of the term. I personally am glad to see them gone as they were cruel and barbaric. It is fine by me that the military went in and ousted them but when you make a white flag deal it is completely unforgivable to renage on it. Most of the soldiers held in Cuba were given assurances that if they surrendered they could go home. When they got to the fort in Afghanistan they were told that they could not go home until they had told the CIA all that was required. That was when they rebelled. The US changed the rules after making a deal.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
They probably don't know how he did it which is why they are wanting him instead of killing him. Either that, or we are getting soft.
The reason the military didn't catch this dildo is because of pure ignorance. Military is trained by dildos who can't type, and the people who trained them also. All along they take their orders and training programs from upper command dildos... who haven't a clue how to administrate networks or educational programs on teaching the next IT elitists. Government could mess up a wet dream... that is why the militaries network was compromised.
Wow. And we've got a lot of military folks in the US, which borders a country or two that has lots of oil...you're onto something there!
The laws of the European Union don't allow member states to extradict to countries with a legal system not compatible with the European system.
That means e.g. to all countries with death penalty like China, the US and Saudi Arabia.
These laws overrule even bilateral treaties, making them illegal in the first place.
Hiroshima?
Nagasaki?
Hadly directed attacks towards military installations. If that wasn't using terror to make Japan surrender, I don't know. Yet I haven't seen Truman (or the generals, or Congress / Senate) on trial for it. Now why doesn't that surprise me?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Are you being deliberately dense and obtuse, or are you that way naturally?
A British computer administrator has been accused of hacking into 92 networks operated by the US military and the space agency Nasa. US investigators say one break-in shut down navy systems immediately after the September 11 terror attacks. Authorities say two of the computer systems were at the Pentagon. The intrusions also made inoperable the network that serves the military district for Washington. Authorities have disclosed indictments in northern Virginia and New Jersey against Gary McKinnon, 36, of the Hornsey, north London. He was indicted on eight counts of computer-related crimes, including break-ins at six private companies. Court records in Virginia said McKinnon caused £566,000 in damage to computers in 14 states. In New Jersey, McKinnon was accused of hacking into a network of 300 computers at the Earle Naval Weapons Station in Colts Neck, and stealing 950 passwords.
Because of the break-in, which occurred immediately after the terrorist attacks, the whole system was effectively shut down for one week, officials said. That station replenishes munitions and supplies for the Atlantic fleet. "This was a grave intrusion into a vital military computer system at a time when we, as a nation, had to summon all of our defences against further attack," said US Attorney Christopher Christie in Washington. McKinnon, if found guilty, faces a maximum penalty of five years in federal prison and a £157,000 fine, Christie said. Christie confirmed that officials are weighing whether to seek McKinnon's extradition from England, a move that would be exceedingly rare among international computer crime investigations.
Ugh... not dinesh jotwani!!!
I only remember one hacker at the other end...
big surprise.
~ jon
Here's the latest
Since the O2 site seems to be overloaded or pulled the story, here's the CNN story
Why not just send some CIA Predator drones and assassinate the guy?
We've already done it. Just proclaim the guy a "terrorist", which will make him a valid target in a "war" that has no forseeable end, no defined boundaries, and no defined enemy.
Or does the US only perform extra-judicial executions against its own citizens?
Given an infinate number of Monkeys sitting an an infinate number of Unix terminals, could they crack in to the US military network?
-JB (I had to do it)
"I love deadlines. I love the "whooshing" sound they make as they pass by." - Douglas Adams.
That's just further proof that CIA have got something on him.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
the primary goal was to instill fear into American citizens
At least, so the papers tell you.
I wonder whose goal this actually was? Was this their goal?
There is no need to. As long as you attack one, the rest won't put their prices up too high for Mrs. American Pie to fill her gas-guzzler to the brim, or cut their prices too low for Dubya Exploration to make a profit.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
I think the poster meant a segment on a tv news show.
That's just further proof that CIA have got something on him.
huh?Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
and be a slashdot editor as well.
Can you help???
Assuming that he hasn't done a deal to become World President in the near future (a role that I am sure he would be eager to have if the UN had more power), the leading explanation for his puppet-like behaviour is quite possibly that the CIA have him under their complete contol.
If only we could find out how.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Was a waste of time really, its not like it hasn't been done before, and anyways, if the yankees leave their doors wide open someones going to walk in sooner or later. Oh i expect the yankees will want to extradite the guy or whatever, and knowing how pathetic and weak the uk premier is he'll hand him over with a nice basket of goodies. Its about time the uk realised the usa is using hackers etc to peek into its security and reveal secrets the yankee scum should not know about. We know its only a matter of time before someone from the uk kills a usa citizen out of sheer frustration due to the usa's big headed attitude. Oh btw, over 80% of brits don't want a war with iraq, they see no point. And its no good the cia, fbi or whatever coming over and killing another female police oficer like they did all those years ago, outside the libyan embassy. I say hack more secure files and wipe em. :-)
[The views expressed above may not be those of the original registeree]
The German plan was a fine one, and could've worked ...
It was fine for the invasion of Norway where strategic and tactical surprise was achieved against numerically inferior military at a low state of readiness.
It was a poor plan against the British Isles. 1) No surprise, not even tactical. 2) British had a superior force on the ground. 3) No prospect of quickly seizing the seat of Government. 4) Little prospect of retaining seizing Airfields, 5) Little prospect of seizing or retaining ports.
German forces could've pushed onto the British Isles
The Germans had limited amphibious capability therefore allowed only limited provision for landing heavy equipment, tanks, artillery, trucks etc; beyond seizing a port as the primary objective. Germany Parachutists would have been extremely vulnerable to land based mechanised counter attack (something not possible in Norway due to terrain). They would have been in a worse position than the Allies at Arnhem during Market Garden, without any prospect of retreat across the channel. They would have been decimated.
In summary German amphibious & parachute forces where adequate to take Norway, they would have been completely inadequate to take the British Isles.
Sealion was never implemented or even seriously consider, it was a plan, not an operation. The German high command even the reckless Hitler realised it was complete folly.
the RAF was seriously attrited.
The RAF had three fighter groups available in the British Isles. Two front line fighter groups and one stategic reserve. It committed only one front line group to the Battle of Briton. The RAF's plan was to rotate the Southern and Northern Groups, if the Southern group broke. It never broke. The Luftwaffe may have started with a numerical advantage but in practice the RAF had many practical advantages, RADAR, it operated over friendly territory, it had lower losses, higher production of new aircraft, much higher levels pilot replacement and aircraft better suited to the task in hand.
Maybe if the German resources weren't split on the Eastern front they could've overwhelmed the defenders.
No. Barbarossa, the German offensive against the Soviet Union started in June 41 nearly a year after the Battle of Briton finished in August 40.
I agree with you about general US foreign policy. It is typically one-sided.
What I meant was that the ICC or a World Court is not directly relevant in this case: what is relevant are international treaties and agreements on extradiction and recognition of crimes - irrespective of anything to do with the ICC or a World Court.
You said: ''yet tries to extend US jurisdiction outside its borders. But this is ridiculous. If the actions took place in the EU, on what basis could there be extradition to the US?''
Incorrect: The actions did not take place in the EU - the act of intrusion occurred in the US, because the physical machines are located in the US. He was a legal entity ''reaching into'' the US and acting within the US.
The crime is "intrusion into computer". Where is the computer: US. He is located outside of the US, but the act occurred in the US.
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
However, and I am aware I may be taking this argument beyond the scope fo the usual Slashdot discussions, it is precisely the concept of "reaching into" a foreign server that I take issue with. The actual actions of the alleged cracker took place in the UK, not the US. What actually passed to the US? Nothing physical (the electrons in the wire do not cross the Atlantic). In effect, he asked the server to do something (passed information ) and it responded by doing it.
Now consider an analogous case. Suppose I phone up someone in Chicago and tell them I am their long-lost uncle from Tampa. The person is foolish enough to believe it. I then persuade them to remit me $250 in cash so that I can make it to Chicago, with some hard-luck story. Now, what crime have I committed? Possibly fraud. Where did I commit it? I suggest that most people would say "In Tampa", because that is where I was when I told all those lies, and that is where I actually received the money. What happened in Chicago was that someone behaved in a foolish and gullible manner - which is not itself a crime, though perhaps it should be.
In the same way, although the server was physically located in the US, the action of telling lies to it took place in the UK, and the "stolen" information was received in the UK. The server answered questions and responded to requests to perform certain actions. Had the server ignored the requests, nothing would have happened. The situation is quite different from, say, a terrorist missile launched from one country into another, where a physical destructive agency is passed over which does not rely on the cooperation of an agency in the attacked country.
Of course, IANAL-just someone who has lawyers in the family.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
You need to talk to your lawyers about legal jurisdiction. These jurisdictional arguments are well established in legal community (I am currently a law student).
...).
k e.html
The "telling lies" and "information was received" are not the issue, the issue is "theft/break into computer" which clearly happened in the US. Although the act was initiated elsewhere, it clearly happened in the US (the server is in the US - how much more clear can that be?).
Your point about treason has mixed relevance. Firstly treason only applies to citizens of a country, not to non-citizens, and it relates to state secrets and issues that affect the security/wellbeing of a country, not mere criticism (although the line can be fuzzy, most sensible people know where it is). Although in international law under the "doctrine of effects", some activity outside of a country that has impact upon the country can be taken as affecting law within that country (so, for example, an external person inciting hatred within a country causing significant legal problems could be considered to have violated said countries laws -- whether or not extradition will help, though
I'd prefer not to continue this debate.
Read this: http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v50/no1/wils
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
* blowing up the Pentagon - legit.
* dropping a 2000 pound bomb on a wedding party - a regretable accident.
Based on your taxonomy, how would you classify the act in which a US pilot dropped a bomb on a bunch of Canadian soldiers who were engaged in some night-time training activities?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Hadly directed attacks towards military installations. If that wasn't using terror to make Japan surrender, I don't know. Yet I haven't seen Truman (or the generals, or Congress / Senate) on trial for it. Now why doesn't that surprise me?
There are a number of people who argue that "Bomber" Harris should be considered a war criminal because he ordered the fire-bombing of Dresden at a point in WWII when Germany's defeat was all but certain. That absolutely pales in comparison to the nuclear attacks against Japan of course, but some might say that Japan was all but defeated prior to the nuclear attacks as well...
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Hehehe.. I'm not going to die in the near future. I'm afraid you'll have to get used to me! I'm so cool!!! And I love myself. yea.
Slashdot community, please notice: I am looking for a girlfriend.
Nave H. Weiss
One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast
to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists,
a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also
just stupid.
-- J.D. Watson, "The Double Helix"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...