'UK Hackers' Condemn McKinnon?

An anonymous reader writes "Whitedust has some interesting commentary on this BBC article which claims that 'UK hackers' have condemned Gary Mckinnon's trial. From the article: 'Another example of some truly awful and misinformed mainstream tech reporting here. The article claims that UK hackers are almost all in support of Mr Mckinnon when in truth as we all know the entire tech community has agreed that Mr Mckinnon is not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker.'"

Comments

Much Ado About Nothing

[TripMaster Monkey]

Agreed, Gary is an idiot. His moonbat UFO-tech stories notwithstanding, anyone who breaks into systems by exploiting blank administrator passwords really isn't much of a 'hacker', and anyone who says they managed to get a UFO picture, but didn't save a screen dump is either a moron or a liar.

All that said, 70 years? Incarcerating Gary for what amounts to a life sentence for his harmless sightseeing is more than too harsh...it makes him a martyr to hackerdom...a martyr that actual hackers would much rather not be associated with.

Instead, how about some action against the clueless sysadmins who left vital Army, Navy, Air Force, and DoD systems vulnerable to such a sophomoric and elementary 'attack' by not passwording administrator-level accounts? If I ever failed to protect my network against such an intrusion, I'd be cleaning out my desk at the end of the day.

Mark deserves to be punished, but extradition to the U.S., 70 years in prison, and millions of dollars in fines is just plain overboard. The U.S. would much better serve its interests by studiously ignoring Gary and letting the UK authorities deal with him.

Of course, if the U.S. is just looking for another 'terrorist' to keep the public's fear level at fever pitch, I suppose the uber-hacker Gary McKinnon will do nicely.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[cdogbert]

...but extradition to the U.S., 70 years in prison, and millions of dollars in fines is just plain overboard. This is just supposed to "make an example". 70 years in prison makes a great headline to go with this cracked-out story. "If we get caught, we're not going to white-collar resort prison. No, no, no. We're going to federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison."

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[AceCaseOR]

That 70 years figure seems, at least to me, to be a little higher then what he'd actually get, I think. Quoting such a figure might just be to get him to cop a plea, for a lower sentence, thus saving the expense of a trial, and freeing up the dock for more important cases.

However, considering his previous behavior, he'll probably plead not-guilty, and insist on defending himself, rather then hiring an attorney, or using a court assigned one.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, you need to submit yourself to Dr. Phil or someone who can help you with your narcisstic needs to get the beloved first-post.

And you keep chasing him around like a faithful puppy. Who needs help?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gary is an idiot."

Well said! Spoken with assurance by one who has proven himself to be an expert, with many years of experience, to boot.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Unski]

Mark deserves to be punished, but extradition to the U.S., 70 years in prison, and millions of dollars in fines is just plain overboard. The U.S. would much better serve its interests by studiously ignoring Gary and letting the UK authorities deal with him.
Why do you stop there? This what is fishy to me - that he is looking at a horrendously disproportionate sentence in relation to his crimes. It only remains to be effectively discussed as to why he is looking at such a stupid sentence.

It's so easy to rattle off some dismissive diatribe on /., saying he is a nutjob etc., but why the hell are they looking at giving him such a fisting? And as for his credibility amongst the UK hacker community, who the hell are Whitedust to be able to speak for them? There has been so much momentum in the direction of explaining away his allegations, and so little critical analysis of what he says. Most of the analyses I have read basically start from the point of view that he is mad and deluded, no-one is supposing 'what if he is right..?'. There were easily about 20 naysayers who jumped on his explanation for not being able to grab a screenshot - a narrowly technical aspect to his allegations - but I believe him as I believe he would not have had time to grab one. I also believe he has got out of his depth, and has seen too much. I say it again: 70 years? Something is not right.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>harmless sightseeing

Not harmless, given the cost of ensuring that a compromised system is free of root kits, logic bombs, sniffers, key loggers, defacements, deletions, and subtle but interesting edits to documents(*). Add the cost of handling it to preserve evidence plus analyzing and tracing the attack. If these had been commercial instead of government systems you'd also need to add the cost of downtime.

(*) Yes, yes, of course I know. But if the system's been infected long enough then the backups are infected too.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument that you put forward, that it is somehow the admins fault, is perposterous. They should get punished internally, true, but it isn't their fault they got hacked. It is their fault that they didn't do enough to stop it, but that doesn't diminish the culpability of anyone that did hack the box.

I should be able to live without fear of being hacked. I should be able to live without fear of my house being broken into. If I don't lock down every port, and someone walks in, it isn't my fault.

A lot of people use this logic, and it is starting to piss me off. "It's not my fault I did x. They should have done more to stop me from doing x. It is their fault..."

(And after rereading your post while previewing mine, your only fault was "instead" which I focused on, and wasn't your real intent, but my dander was already up, and is a valid peeve to voice here)

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Mister Whirly]

but just remember the conjugal visits...

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[SillyNickName4me]

Not harmless, given the cost of ensuring that a compromised system is free of root kits, logic bombs, sniffers, key loggers, defacements, deletions, and subtle but interesting edits to documents(*). Add the cost of handling it to preserve evidence plus analyzing and tracing the attack. If these had been commercial instead of government systems you'd also need to add the cost of downtime.

It is indeed a lot more expensive then setting a real password for the administrator accounts, yeah..

What Garry did was inexcusable, but if you want to draw a conclusion, it should be that leaving your system wide open can turn out to be very expensive.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[shotfeel]

It all depends on how you add things up. Is 5 years too much of a sentence for breaking into gov/mil computer systems? Then if he's being tried for 14 separate violations, that could add up to 70 years if convicted on all counts. Even then, the judge could sentence him to the maximum 5 years for all convictions, but say all terms to be served concurrently (meaning only 5 years max). OTOH, nobody seems to note what the minimum sentence could be. Is it possible he could be found guilty and serve no prison time at all?

Just to be clear, the "5 years" was just pulled out of a hat. I don't know specifically what crimes he's being accused of, how many, or what the sentencing range is for any of them.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[JPriest]

If the admin password was not even set and all he did was pull down some files, are his actions even really defined as hacking? If someone connects ftp.some.gov which permits anonymous access and pulls some files from there is that also hacking?

If using IE vuls to install spyware on windows machines is not even against the law, how can his actions be worth 70 years?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Unski]

Yeah I would not disagree with what you suggest there - that it could be served serially or concurrently and that the minimum is not being reported. I thank you for that much, but the main thrust of my post is that (should they choose to make him serve it) seventy years is still a suspiciously disproportional sentence and only adds fuel to the fire. It bugs me, it makes me believe him more than a casually dismissive sentence would. What did he see? Why do they want to gag him so bad? Very few, if any, hackers have been convicted and given custodial sentences, there are several unusual things about this case;

1. He managed to hack into US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Defense for a period of around two years. Equals much embarrassment on the part of those respective organisations, surely?
2. The US has a real hard-on for extradition. Britain has had to work hard in persuading them to let Britain prosecute him instead. There is a real appetite for punishing him amongst the US authorities, but I doubt there are many citizens in the US that care.
3. He talks of suppressed technology - UFO technology, anti-gravity technology and so-called 'Free Energy' technology. I wager that most people would not go around saying such things unless they were convinced they had seen such things. He must surely have been aware his claims would be met with outright derision, that people would not simply believe him and demand more information from government.
4. A classic tactic in a psychological war campaign is that of Decoy, Distract and Trash: Set up some person or group, take them off the trail of something real and important, and trash the person or the subject. McKinnon is totally vulnerable to tactics such as these at the moment - his allegations can be individually explained away by the authorities to the media (decoy), the public can be incited into wanting him punished via the media (distract) and he personally can have his PC and human rights impounded (trash).

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

anyone who says they managed to get a UFO picture, but didn't save a screen dump is either a moron or a liar.
So you never make big mistakes like that?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[shotfeel]

It bugs me, it makes me believe him more than a casually dismissive sentence would. What did he see? Why do they want to gag him so bad?

OTOH it is the way the legal system works -he gets charged with everything they think they may have enough evidence to convict on. That not only "covers all the bases", but it makes it easier to get a confession for lesser charges which may seem more in-line with the crimes (and also makes for bigger headlines). So I'm not sure you can really infer any kind of ulterior motive beyond that (not that there may not be some).

Personally, I think we have enough to deal with in the US. Let the UK deal with the trial, etc. if they're willing to do it. Having said that, I have to wonder what type of punishment he could be facing in the UK if convicted there? I haven't seen that reported either.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[DenDude]

/*[suppressed technology]... anti-gravity technology and so-called 'Free Energy' technology. I wager that most people would not go around saying such things unless they were convinced they had seen such things. */

Actually, there are a lot of people that would say things like this without ever actually seeing it. I'd refer you to Pons and Fleischmann of the Cold Fusion fiasco for example. Maybe at first they thought they had something, but eventually, they had to know that they were mistaken. Neither of them, however, admitted that they had made a mistake.
There have been a ton of these devices designed and built over the years, and not a single one of them works. You just can't violate the laws of thermodynamics. Not ever.
/* He must surely have been aware his claims would be met with outright derision, that people would not simply believe him and demand more information from government. */
Or possibly he would know that the government is just not able to provide information, thus proving him correct, and a great, great man. Come on, really. Anti-gravity? Free Energy? geez....

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Unski]

But, I put it to any sceptic - do you have any evidence he didn't see any of that? Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence. You have merely your faith in the laws of thermodynamics - I'm sorry, I am a geek, I love science, I love technology and I believe in the empirical method, but ultimately physics and it's laws are all works in progress, subject to validation and dismissal at any point. Going further, though it works as a system for us to make sense of the world, science is just another belief system.

At the moment, the only opposition you provide is a facile statement of your belief in the Law of Thermodynamics, and a baseless dismissal of the things he has suggested he has seen.

I have no evidence he is right. You have no evidence he is wrong. But /. was once somewhere where the alternative possibilities could be discussed.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[kdemetter]

Yes ,and if the US military has knowledge about anti-gravity technology and 'Free Energy' technology , they would probably deny it anyway . Knowledge is power , and thus to be the most powerfull , you need to know the most.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Unski]

"Dr K, another UK hacker interviewed by the BBC News website, questioned why Mr McKinnon had to be extradited to be tried for the crimes for which he has already confessed.

"We have laws in this country to deal with this kind of trans-national data crime," he said, "Gary McKinnon should be tried here under UK law."
That's from the BBC page referenced by today's /. article, as for what he would be tried under in this country, I saw it today on the BBC but cannot find it now, but it said he would be tried under the 'Computer Misuse Act' in this country. That link has real legal language beyond my comprehension, but I do notice 'Territorial scope of inchoate offences related to offences under this Act.' and 'Extradition where Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1989 applies.' mentioned. If you actually did read it, I would want to know what you thought if it. Thank-you for only mildly insinuating I am crazy, I appreciate fair-minded discussion.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Is 5 years too much of a sentence for breaking into gov/mil computer systems?

That depends. The five year incarceration he'd get in the UK isn't too much. The five year incarceration + rape while the prison guards look the other way and crack jokes about it is too much.

I think he should go to jail, but I'd rather he went free than be extradited to the USA. The USA "justice" system seems more about revenge and sadism than actual justice, hence the reason why you are the only democratic country in the world to still have the death penalty.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[magnamous]

Instead, how about some action against the clueless sysadmins who left vital Army, Navy, Air Force, and DoD systems vulnerable to such a sophomoric and elementary 'attack' by not passwording administrator-level accounts? If I ever failed to protect my network against such an intrusion, I'd be cleaning out my desk at the end of the day.

Actually, the most credible-sounding explanation I've heard in the linked articles is that they set up honeypots for people like Doofus McKinnon:

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185086 &cid=15278232

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Chr0nik]

I take it you haven't read up on the Pons and Fleichmann "fiasco" lately have you? Not only has it been re-reviewed, but funding for research, although limited, has been approved by the DOE based on the second review's results. The cold fusion reigns have been taken over by others in their place, since they were so utterly shunned, and ridiculed by the scientific establishment. Now the question is not whether or not excess heat has been generated. But whether or not it's a product of fusion, and whether or not the methods of measuring the excess heat are accurate. Most people on the panel agree that it is, due to the presence of tritium ash, a by-product of fusion. They disagree on the amounts of excess heat, and the methods of testing, and they are not going full bore with it. But it's not completely dismissed out of hand any longer.

Not to mention it has been replicated many, many times, by many researchers in many labs at this point. Don't get me wrong, the findings were still negative(or should I say skeptical), which they should be, but they are now receiving funding. And Stanley Pons and Martin Fleichmann, are now back in the fusion game. It's been 20 years since the initial review, and people kept tinkering, and working with it. The DOE now thinks that it's now worth taking a look at. I wonder where it will be in another 20 years, now that they have funding for "Higly focused research efforts". And now that they are not considered paraihs for even researching it.

From the DOE report: The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV. These proposals should meet accepted scientific standards, and undergo the rigors of peer review. No reviewer recommended a focused federally funded program for low energy nuclear reactions. Reviewers identified two areas where additional research could address specific issues. One is the investigation of the properties of deuterated metals including possible effects of alloying and dislocations. These studies should take advantage of the modern tools for material characterization. A second area of investigation is the use of state-of-the-art apparatus and techniques to search for fusion events in thin deuterated foils. Several reviewers specifically stated that more experiments similar in nature to those that have been carried out for the past fifteen years are unlikely to advance knowledge in this area.

You can check it out for yourself at www.newenergytimes.com.. BTW if you need to look any further, only a handful of researchers call it "cold fusion", it's more common term lately has been LENR, or Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. There are other sites, but you'll have to sift through the cooks to find them. Personally I don't see any reason why it's not possible, it doesn't break any laws of physics, like a lot of those self running magnet motors and PM devices people are always reporting. The theory seems reasonable. Nothing insanely out of wack, nothing that proposes tapping ether or some esoteric bizarre unknown energy force.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

You do for thinking that we're too f-cking stupid to realize that you're responding to your detractors anonymously.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[iced_773]

Y'know, I'm thinking the way you follow him around like this, YOU might be TMM. This could all be an act to get the respectable, troll-hating members of Slashdot to sympathize with him (i.e. you).

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[DenDude]

/* But, I put it to any sceptic - do you have any evidence he didn't see any of that */

No, I have not. But then again, I have no evidence that you are not a 4' tall green lion from the planet ipthar typing telepathically to /. However, until I've seen documentation of 4' tall green lions from the planet ipthar *with* telepathy, I am just going to assume that you are a human using some sort of input device like everyone else.

/* ultimately physics and it's laws are all works in progress, subject to validation and dismissal at any point */

Exactly. When I see any evidence that there is a way to get free energy, I'll be sure to look at it. However, some dude telling me that the Pentagon has free energy, even though I see tanks still using diesel (or jp4 or whatever those things use now) is just not enough evidence to get excited about, let alone examine.

/* At the moment, the only opposition you provide is a facile statement of your belief in the Law of Thermodynamics, and a baseless dismissal of the things he has suggested he has seen. */

You are absolutely correct there. I have a belief in a law that has been proven over and over, and has *never*... *ever* been proven to not work. Does anyone really think that maybe I should believe in some other thing that destroys one of the foundations of physics?
Now, about the *baseless* dismissal. It's not without foundation as you seem to imply. The foundation of my dismissal is the knowledge that anti-gravity and perpetual motion machines have been proven over and over again to be not feasible. That's not baseless; it's empiricism.

/*You have no evidence he is wrong*/

Of course I don't. And in fact, there is not a single person in the world that has evidence that he is wrong, because there's not a single person in the world that knows every document in every server in the world. But the historical evidence shows that every single person who bets against the law of conservation of energy has lost. Does that mean that it's always going to be? Well... not necessarily... but for now, I wouldn't disconnect from the local electric company.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[DenDude]

The matter of funding for LENR is a simple one. It's Pascal's Wager. Bet a little bit on the outcome of something that has little chance of succeeding. If it works, you make a mint, and if it doesn't, you are only out a little bit. It's the same as the lottery. You know when you buy the ticket that you won't win, but it's only a dollar, and if you win...

Here's what else the DOE said in the report.
The preponderance of the reviewers' evaluations indicated that Charge Element 2, the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions, is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented. One reviewer believed that the occurrence was demonstrated, and several reviewers did not address the question.

and...
Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced. Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented.

and finally...
Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented.

So what we have is two-thirds of the reviewers saying the evidence was not conclusive. This wasn't meant to be a knock Pons day, and it would be really, really cool if it worked, but the majority of reviewers say that it was not demonstrated.
So let's fund it for... say 100 million dollars. That's a tiny fraction of the US budget, and if it pays off... woo-hoo... but again, don't disconnect from APS just yet.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Unski]

I have no evidence that you are not a 4' tall green lion from the planet ipthar typing telepathically to /. However, until I've seen documentation of 4' tall green lions from the planet ipthar *with* telepathy, I am just going to assume that you are a human using some sort of input device like everyone else.
Really, the logical extension of my argument. Excelsior to you. That is completely within the boundaries of my argument. And just as you correctly assume my essential human/computer/input device nature, despite the possibility you outline, I reasonably assume that McKinnon's assertions could be incorrect: A. He knows he didn't see any of this, or B. What he thinks he saw isn't what he saw. This, though, is despite 'C. The possibility that he could be right.' These are up in the air to me, as I am not a physicist.

However, some dude telling me that the Pentagon has free energy, even though I see tanks still using diesel (or jp4 or whatever those things use now) is just not enough evidence to get excited about, let alone examine.
Ordinarily it's not enough to pique my interest, would be in the 'readily dismissible' category save for the fact that the authorities are seeking to put him away for up to 70 years. What can I say? I can't deny this kind of story is interesting to me.

/* At the moment, the only opposition you provide is a facile statement of your belief in the Law of Thermodynamics, and a baseless dismissal of the things he has suggested he has seen. */

You are absolutely correct there. I have a belief in a law that has been proven over and over, and has *never*... *ever* been proven to not work. Does anyone really think that maybe I should believe in some other thing that destroys one of the foundations of physics?
You quote me too selectively there to be ignored. In the preceding sentence I add the caveat 'though it works as a system for us to make sense of the world'. I believe it is a good working model, but I dare to say it might change or be completely replaced, even by 'some other thing that destroys one of the foundations of physics'. You apparently do not.

But the historical evidence shows that every single person who bets against the law of conservation of energy has lost. Does that mean that it's always going to be? Well... not necessarily... but for now, I wouldn't disconnect from the local electric company.
Nor would I disconnect from my local electric company. I would merely read with great interest the whole event - the whole 'not necessarily' part - and keep fishing for what I can find out, within my mortal comprehension. C'mon, stop this nonsense, stop trying to polarise it so readily, please, I'm tired.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Bilestoad]

"I'm sorry, I am a geek, I love science, I love technology and I believe in the empirical method"

No, the rest of your post indicates you do not. You're a "truth is out there", "I want to believe" kind of guy pretending to be rational - just like McKinnon.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Chr0nik]

So let's fund it for... say 100 million dollars. That's a tiny fraction of the US budget, and if it pays off... woo-hoo... but again, don't disconnect from APS just yet.

I agree wholeheartedly... All I was pointing out is that even with their healthy skepticism, and overall negative final conclusion, there now seems to be optimism whereas before there was ridicule. That's a huge step forward for the advancement of this technology if it is determined to be viable.

Using the excerpt you posted: Two-thirds of the reviewers commenting on Charge Element 1 did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced. Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented.

Even here, they are all optimistic, and found the evidence somewhat convincing. In fact NONE of the reviewers stated that they were completely unconvinced. All but one was "somewhat convinced" and one was "convinced." Two thirds of them said that the evidence was not conclusive, and one third either thought it was conclusive or did not given to state an opinion, or stake their reputation, one way or the other on it. Given the overall convincing nature(in their own words) of the data, although not conclusive, one third would seem to be leaning towards a confirmation of the data.

Scientists (good ones anyway) have to maintain a healthy level of skepticism, especially when dealing with new physical phenomenon, whether applied or theoretical. What you see above is as close to a "looks promising" as these guys will ever get before the phenomenon is confirmed outright.

At any rate, I just find it interesting. I don't know that it will ever come to fruition or not, and it wouldn't bother me if it didn't. I don't think the excess heat can be easily put to use without enough loss as to make it nominal anyway. Unless of course it's improved dramatically.

What is promising however are other forms of "bench top fusion" that are happening. Hot fusion is much more promising. Check out focus fusion.

There are lots of technologies that are more promising than cold fusion. Betavoltaic cells are incredibly cool. They will never be mass market, but could easily be set up to power the grid, with no waste. In fact, they can use the waste to make the cells. To me that's pretty beneficial. No more hydrocarbon fuel dependence from the grid, and it would be environmentally beneficial in the aspect that it would cause us to clean up a bit in order to make it work.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[dcam]

Why do you stop there? This what is fishy to me - that he is looking at a horrendously disproportionate sentence in relation to his crimes. It only remains to be effectively discussed as to why he is looking at such a stupid sentence.

Becuase he messed with .mil. They are sending a strong message.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[lbyx]

You get conjugal visits?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude. Your sig. It sucks ass. Find something better. Please? We're all sick of it.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing the entire tech community has ever agreed upon was to work for greedy, power mad idiots.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a lot more points of criticism, if you read the BBC review.

- Why did he have to turn colour to 4-bit and resolution massively down to download a picture? 56k isn't that slow.

- If security was as lax as he says, why was a single unclear picture everything he found over the space of 2 years?

- Why does the government airbrush out UFOs from high-resolution images as he claims? Couldn't they just take another picture when the UFO has passed? Also, if these are for wider use (assumedly so, or they wouldn't need to airbrush them), how can you on a high-res picture use the 'clone' brush in a way so it's not detected? Copy the other half of the city and mirror it?

- How could he, on a 4-bit ultra-lowres picture see that the UFO had "no rivets or seams"? Isn't that a bit hard to spot?

- What was the 'hand he saw' that "moved across"? Moved across what? The camera lens? The sattelite lens? The mousepad?

- Why does he first say he got a "picture out of a folder", and then next say that he couldn't save it because the Java applet worked on a "frame by frame basis"? Does the US military use animated GIFs perhaps?

Overall, there's just too many holes.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[drsquare]

I'm a British citizen and I say extradite him. I don't see why my tax money should be wasted on trying this nutjob when the Americans are willing to do it at their expense. He dug his own grave, he can't expect us to dig him out of it.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[tehcyder]

As we don't hand out consecutive sentences in the UK (AFAIK, IANAL, etc) could this be grounds for appealing against extradition?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[mdwh2]

I'm a British citizen and I say extradite him. I don't see why my tax money should be wasted on trying this nutjob when the Americans are willing to do it at their expense. He dug his own grave, he can't expect us to dig him out of it.

Just to be clear - if you are ever accused of a crime, you are happy to be extradited to another country, where you basically have no rights, and receive no help from the Government you pay taxes to, just to save the rest of us a little money?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[nairobiny]

Actually, the most credible-sounding explanation I've heard in the linked articles is that they set up honeypots for people like Doofus McKinnon

Credible until it fails to explain why the US would press for extradition (expensive) and a 70 year sentence (even more expensive). If it really were a honeypot, they'd just go "Hahahaha, we PWNED you, lolx!!!1!!!111!" and let the UK authorities get him on some minor charge or other. Letting hackers know that honeypots exist doesn't compromise US security, after all.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

haha. sweet!

RJ Snooks

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Sno oks

http://snooks.urbanup.com/13024

http://snooks.urbanup.com/12998

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[drsquare]

I wouldn't be happy about it, but if I commited a crime in another country, I really wouldn't have any excuse to complain about it. I don't think America's justice system is any more unreliable than ours.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing

[magnamous]

I think you perhaps are missing the point of putting a honeypot out there in the first place. I would think that they put honeypots out there to snare the people who are trying to snoop around on their servers. It follows that you would then want to make an example of anyone you caught.

The point of the honeypot, I think, is to catch him before he actually finds something (be it space aliens or tactical plans).

No Free Energy For You!

[Anonymous Coward]

...as we all know the entire tech community has agreed that Mr Mckinnon is not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker.

Oh, Gary's gonna be pissed when he sees that. No free energy for you!

Re:No Free Energy For You!

[the.o.ster.66]

in Nutjob's defense, he *did* say that he "wasn't very clever about it" and it was just a few lines of perl...so he knows he's not a "hacker"

What?!

[Cheapy]

Whoa there. They aren't condemning him. They are condemning the trial. Last time I checked, those were entirely different things. He got lazy towards the end, but how lazy was the US Military to not notice it for two years?

That really makes you think about how long someone who really has hostile intents could stay undetected.

Re:What?!

[The_REAL_DZA]

That really makes you think about how long someone who really has hostile intents could stay undetected.

Answer: Pretty much as long as they wanted to.
 
Remember all those Mission: Impossible episodes (the "good" T.V. ones, not the "so-so" Cruise-missiles they've been releasing the last few years...)? You remember how at the end their "target" always had that "wtf just happened?!?!" look on his face? Same story, different era (and the tape may or may not self-destruct in five seconds...)

Re:What?!

[DrSkwid]

Mission Impossible is not a documentary.

Re:What?!

[Xaositecte]

Isn't it?

Re:What?!

[Tim Browse]

No, it's just so tedious that it seems like it.

Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

The article claims that UK hackers are almost all in support of Mr Mckinnon when in truth as we all know the entire tech community has agreed that Mr Mckinnon is not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker.

Perhaps whitedust should consider that the hacking community can think Mr Mckinnon is "not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker," but at the same time also support Mr Mckinnon as he is being extradited to the US for committing a crime in Britain.

Would US hackers support the extradition of another hacker being extradited to France for hacking a french military network? I suspect not - no matter how stupid & obnoxious the hacker's behaviour was.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Tweekster]

Um actually extradition exists for a reason. And he didnt commit his crime in britian, he commited it in Britian AND the United States. That is the downfall of technology. All this talk of no borders and you can't limit it etc, well guess what, it works both ways.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[LWATCDR]

"Mr Mckinnon as he is being extradited to the US for committing a crime in Britain"
He broke into a computer in the US. So what the crime committed in the US or Britain? Having "Hackers" come to your defence is a little like the mob coming to your defence. I really hate that use of the term Hacker. I still think of Hackers as being good programmers and not script kiddies.
That being said I see no real reason for him to serve 70+years. I do think that he should go on trial here in the US but he should get a suspended sentence and possibly some medical help. I really doubt they will throw the book at this poor soul.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like it would be a crime for me in a country that forbids websites to publish one over here in the UK?

International law..

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Um actually extradition exists for a reason.

Yes, so that criminal who commit a crime in a country, then flee to another country can be returned to the country they committed the crime in.

And he didnt commit his crime in britian, he commited it in Britian AND the United States.

No he was in Britain when the crime was committed. The crime occurred in both countries. Perhaps I did not sufficiently distinguish between the subject & object of my original sentence.

That is the downfall of technology. All this talk of no borders and you can't limit it etc, well guess what, it works both ways.

No, it only works one way - when you commit an offense outside of the US, your government will face pressure to extradite you to the US. It will not flow the other way.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Anonymous Coward]

The person accused of a crime was at all times relevant to the accusation located inside Britain. The person accused of a crime was not under the jurisdiction of any other country.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[TubeSteak]

extradited to the US for committing a crime in Britain.

International law is funny that way. The U.S. does not have a reciprocal agreement to extradite people to the UK.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/60523-print.sh tml

Apparently the Scots don't like the terms of the 'new' treaty. Kudos to them.
Here's the meat of the article

Britain's controversial extradition treaty with the US faces a challenge from Holyrood over whether it can be applied in Scottish courts.

MSPs are understood to have agreed in private to lobby Whitehall over the deal with Washington under which British people can be incarcerated while awaiting trial in America, despite no evidence being presented against them.

[2 paragraphs]

The treaty was agreed by Britain three years ago to avoid long delays in bringing terrorism suspects to trial. All that is required to remove a suspect from Britain is a warrant from a US court, without any evidence being required. However Congress has stalled its reciprocal part of the treaty because legislators there fear it does not give adequate protection to US citizens extradited to the UK.

Liberty, the [UK human rights &] civil liberties campaigning group, complains that the law is being used for non-terrorist charges, that those involved face jail on remand because they have no residence when they arrive in the US, and that the preparation of cases can take months

Emphasis mine.
What were the Brits thinking to agree to such a treaty? Their Gov't failed in its fundamental duty to protect its citizens & provide due process.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Ricwot]

...exists in no real coherent form, and is basically epressed by the exercising of power by larger countries against smaller countries.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[kentmartin]

So, by this logic, I pop a website up in the UK that is critical of the Elosian administration. It is illegal to criticise the Elosian administration in Elosia, so, they can request my extradition?

Better still, I publish my non DMCA compliant workarounds on my website in Elosia (which also has DMCA madness), US citizens can access it, does that mean that the US can extradite me when the Elosian court system has had it's fill with me?

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

No he was in Britain when the crime was committed. The crime occurred in both countries.

Negative. Jurisdictions do not overlap. If the same crime was comitted in two jurisdictions, then you open the way for double jeopardy extraordinare.

McKinnon was in the UK as he knowingly broke US law, just as say, USians are in say, the US, as they knowingly break Saudi law when they critisise the House of Saud.

Here's the bottom line in this paticular case. US considers itself the priemiere country in the world. US law is considered by US courts to apply everywhere, and anyone infriging on US laws or the rights of US entities, evern if the infrigement is outside the US, is condiered accountable. Essentially, every non US citizen is still deemed to be de factor under US law by the United States, and such vassals are subject to summons, inspection and approval by their masters in washington.

Think that's a bit far fetched? Go ask Manuel Noriega and the Panamanian government about the extra long arm of US law.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[shotfeel]

Would US hackers support the extradition of another hacker being extradited to France for hacking a french military network? I suspect not - no matter how stupid & obnoxious the hacker's behaviour was.

I don't know that I qualify for any given definition of "hacker", but I would have no issues with extradition in that case.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[shotfeel]

It really isn't very clear is it. Especially when the crime actually extends across the border. If I throw a rock across the US/Canadian border to hit a Canadian, where should I be prosecuted? Its a crime in both countries. Same it true if I'm sitting at a computer in the US and hack into a Canadian govermnent computer.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[VinB]

Would US hackers support the extradition of another hacker being extradited to France for hacking a french military network?

Bad example. French?, military? in the same sentence? I disagree with the entire premise.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[LWATCDR]

"So, by this logic, I pop a website up in the UK that is critical of the Elosian administration. It is illegal to criticise the Elosian administration in Elosia, so, they can request my extradition?"
Not quite the same thing.
How about this. You stand in Northern Ireland and you shoot and kill someone in Ireland?
You action was made in the UK but the crime happened in Ireland.
Or you embezzle 80 million euros from a bank in France from you system in the UK?

His actions where a crime in both countries, the countries are friendly to each other, and the crime crossed boarders.

What many people in the EU don't understand is this poor guy will be tried by a jury of ordinary US citizens. He isn't going to get 70 years. He is probably going to get a suspended sentence and probation.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[johansalk]

"All this talk of no borders and you can't limit it etc, well guess what, it works both ways." That's bullshit. Americans don't extradite their citizens to the UK. There are countless numbers of IRA people in the US that the UK would want. It just so happens that we in the UK have weak and perhaps corrupt politicians that allow the one-way intimidation of the US administration to fall on individual British citizens. What a big shame. It annoys the heck out of me that some UK politicians it seems care more about their US reputation and future earnings from books and speeches over there than they care about their citizens.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2004/Jun/97247.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0 DE3D71738F936A35754C0A960948260
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0 DE6DA163FF930A35757C0A960948260
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2003/07/23/st ory560336209.asp
http://www.americas.org/item_16224

Shut up now.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Nope, you're wrong.

In all the cases you linked to, the culprit fled to the US after committing the crimes in another country.

I was talking about committing a crime against another country whilst still being in the US.

Shut up now.

How about you get an account rather then stalking me anonymously?

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Tweekster]

Actually if the UK pushed the issue they would have been extradited.

Basically, no one wants to do more work than is necessary. if the UK just goes "hey can you send those guys back" the US will be like "No, too much effort"

If it was a real issue and the UK made it clear with diplomacy it was important and with legal filings, they would have been sent back a long time ago.

This issue was apparently important enough (I dont tend to agree but my opinion isnt national policy so whatever). The pressure was brought and most importantly it was followed up, I am willing to bet it took more than a simple request to get this guy to the US.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Anonymous Coward]

And was extradited out of the US, back to that original country.

Still wrong

How about you lick my taint?

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Oh - Cute little AC!

You didn't bother reading the thread did you?

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I was talking about committing a crime against another country whilst still being in the US." Of course you were. As soon as you're wrong, change what you were claiming until you're right. Shut up now.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

hahahahaha, another cute little AC. Do you love Macs like I do?

For the record, AC is taking a quote from the end of my comment out of context. Please read the whole thread.

Also, AC - can you please learn to format your posts to make them more readable?

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[weierstrass]

you should get a medal.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Corbets]

Could be worse. It was an attack by a British citizen on US military assets - we could consider it an act of war and sink their tiny little island. ;-)

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[scatters]

Sink our tiny island... You really mean sink the US' largest aircraft carrier :)

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[winse]

basically all law boils down to who is in power. There is no such thing as justice on this earth, there are attempts by flawed people to paint a picture of justice. In some cases the picture looks pretty good. In many others it looks flawed at best, but in no case does it look like real justice.

What I'm trying to say is that it depends on WHO the Canadian is, and WHO saw what you did.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Martz]

What was David Blunkett thinking more like? He was the Home Secretary at the time, and signed the UK Extradition Treaty (Google Cache HTML) (PDF). I've tried reading through it, there are many references but IANAL so I can't interpert it properly.

A BBC News article in Feb 2006 stated that:
"Since the 2003 Act came into force, 11 UK citizens have been extradited to the US."
and
"Of the 11, none was a terrorism case." which already shows how much this policy has been abused. With enough pressure, The US can extradite anyone it wants from the UK - meaning for Brits like me, I should be even more concerned about the news, events and laws in the States.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Double jeopardy is perfectly legal in the UK.

Well

[gowen]

if anyone's going to know about talent attention seekers, its Whitedust Security, the people who published the array of conjecture, guesswork, faux outrage and outright wrongitude that was : "Walmarts Wikipedia War"

Re:Well

[AKAImBatman]

Amen. Whitedust seems to think that public opinion == "The Truth" and refuses to do any actual investigation into the matter. I've lost any and all respect I had for their shameful attempts at journalism.

Mod parent up.

Re:Well

[Unski]

Surely a clue as to their credibility is within their name; White Dust security? Reading their slurs on McKinnon was like listening to some coke-heads bitching off somebody. Definitely.

* long sniffing noise *

* extended sniffing noises *

AND I SAY FULL POWER TO THEM. TOO MANY FUCKING HIPPIES AND FREAKS IN SECURITY, fucking Nineties, what have the fucking nineties ever done for us? every fucking body knows that computer security requires an alert mind people! and who fucking has the alert mind? why, it is the mind that is found attached to the fucking cokehead! ipso fucking facto!
bleurgh. I feel faint and pasty, could someone pass me the..

He's not a hacker

[cheese-cube]

Because hackers don't get caught.

Larry David type

[suso]

Maybe this guy is like Larry David, you know, always ending up in weird situations, like being able to get into NASA's servers but not able to save anything. There is the possibility that he made up the story about how his screenviewer works and can't save pictures to save face. Or to prevent him from really getting nabbed by the authorities. I would think that if the U.S. government really suspected that he saw something as important as evidence that aliens exist, that we wouldn't even know this guy existed.

This guy gets the same kind of attention when someone names their baby Google.

Re:Larry David type

[bluefoxlucid]

I would think that if the U.S. government really suspected that he saw something as important as evidence that aliens exist, that we wouldn't even know this guy existed.

There are no 'leaks,' there are strategic conspiracy covers that reveal parts of the truth enough that the public discounts it as conspiracy theory fluff. Think about it. Bvarian Illuminnati trying to take over the world? Laughable. Aliens in flying saucers? A joke. You really saw something? We've heard it before.

Keeping a secret that can't be independently verified is not important. The details of TEMPEST shielding are classified because if someone leaked that crystalized iron-zinc-copper-gold alloy caused a matrix refraction that produced a farriday cage that when exposed to EMR created an EMR field around it that self-contains the radiation, you could build one and go, "Well shit it works!" If someone says they saw aliens masturbating in Area 51, you can't make that from scratch.

It's the scientific process in reverse.

Rebuttal to whining

[spyrochaete]

McKinnon himself has admitted his "hacks" are low tech and utilitarian - a 2-line PERL script. Considering the lack of technical prowess of his intrusion methods, why should hackers take the side of the government on this one? Hackers are in favour of freedom of information over technological ability. I think the hacker community will remain in support of McKinnon because of his (claimed) motivation - curiosity and publicising of government secrets. In this respect I don't think this case is much different from Mitnick's.

Aside, doesn't /. have better news sources than some grammatically incorrect, 1 paragraph blog entry? What is this, Digg?

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[Gotung]

Do you have any idea just how much you can do with 2 lines of PERL?

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[Cederic]

To you it's a 2 line PERL script. To a true monk it's a multi-system automated intrusion system capable of deploying rootkits and coordinating attacks through an IRC bot network.

Don't underestimate the power of PERL.

Back on topic, another poster summed it up well:
- he's an idiot
- he should be tried in a UK court

70 years in prison in a country he never visited to perform his alleged crime? That's not proportionate.

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[AceCaseOR]

I've thought about this some, and actually, perhaps it's a better idea to bring him to the US for trial, even if he doesn't get a 70 year sentence, because it establishes a precident, which could possibly be extended to, say, Russian Spam Kings, Nigerian E-Mail scammers, or any other person or group which is engaging in more serious computer crime against the US and lives in a country we have an extradition treaty with (or could get with) and has weak computer crime laws.

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[spyrochaete]

How much *I* can do? Sure! I can print "Hello World" to the screen!

Howeever, McKinnon said in the BBC article that he just used a simple script to test blank and common passwords on a series of IPs and host names. Even I could do that, and since it succeeded that's not saying much about US military and government security practices.

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[Xaositecte]

or the RIAA could lobby for the extradition of people responsible for thepiratebay, China could lobby for the extradition of international citizens helping Chinese citizens break censorship laws China has put in place, etc. etc.

----

Of course, this extradition is only happening because Great Britain and the United States both regard hacking into a military computer system to be a crime, but if it's not a crime in Russia, Nigeria, or even Great Britain, it's unlikely anyone's going to be extradited to the US.

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[Cederic]

But say I create a website in the UK, looking at the hypothetical question of "How would you assassinate the President of the United States".

Good fun party question, very interesting topic to investigate and ponder, and highly illegal in the US.

Your view is that I should be extraditable to the US for that. My view is that you can go fuck yourself (and ideally your president too).

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[Anonymous Coward]

No Digg has better commentary than
slash.

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[iogan]

I've thought about this some, and actually, perhaps it's a better idea to bring him to the US for trial,

You know what scares me? That you talk about this as if it's your god given right to bring him where ever you want, regardless of the fact that he is a foreign citizen. It seems the views of the current US administration is filtering down through the general population. Well here's a clue: YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO "BRING" CITIZENS FROM SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES ANYWHERE!

Ok? Can we all agree on that please?

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[AceCaseOR]

Yes, the policy I put forward can be exploited for ill. However, there are Nigerian scammers who have persuaded their victims to come to Nigeria to "finish the deal", and their victims haven't come back (and it wasn't because Nigeria is such a nice place that they just had to stay). Plus there are are the Russian cracker rings which have been engaging in extortion against websites with the botnets in their control. A lot of these guys aren't getting prosecuted in Russia or in Nigeria, either because the laws are full of holes, or because they've bought off the system. Do you honestly think they should get away with what they've done?

Extraditing a Spam King who had been using bot-nets to attack those who tried to stop him? I'm all for it.
Extraditing an E-Mail scammer who rips the less net-savvy off from their life savings? I'm all for it.

If it takes extraditing a script kiddy (he's over the age of majority, but he's still a script kiddy) who cracked some US Government systems to help clear the way, I'm all for it.

I'm not for sending this guy to prison for 70 years. However, he broke the goddamn law, he knew he was breaking the law, and this isn't a situation like with DVDJohn where he was doing it for reasons that ought to be legal. He had access to the systems for 2 years - if he was doing white-hat hacking, he should have left them an anonymous tip to the hole 23 months ago! Also, he was doing it for a crack-pot reason.

If some loon hacks the FBI's systems to try and find a non-existant secret file to try and prove that John Siegenthawler did mastermind the Kennedy assssination, and he lives in the UK, or Canada, or Norway, should he be extradited to the US and prosecuted for it? Yes. Now, if that's all he did, and didn't take anything else, does he deserve 70 years? No. However, as I said on an earlier post, this figure may be put forward simply because the prosecutor knows he has enough evidence to convict, and is trying to get the defendant to agree to a much smaller plea deal, as to free up the docket for other cases.

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[AceCaseOR]

Apples to Oranges. McKinnon hacked into a server on the US. He should be liable under US law. You DoS a US server, you should be liable under US Law. You make a web site in the UK advocating the assassination of the US president, you're in the clear, IMHO. However, IANAL.

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[crabpeople]

"If some loon hacks the FBI's systems to try and find a non-existant secret file to try and prove that John Siegenthawler did mastermind the Kennedy assssination, and he lives in the UK, or Canada, or Norway, should he be extradited to the US and prosecuted for it? Yes."

no one deserves to be extradited to the USA for any reason. The usa has shit human rights for non citizens and citizens alike, so much so it should be akin to torture sending a human being there.

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[Anonymous Coward]

You really don't get it do you?

US LAW IS NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW...

When the US is prepared to start allowing US citizens to be answerable to foreign courts - e.g. the International Court in the Hague - then and only then might some of us be prepared even to contemplate what you are talking about.

Until then, it's just another example of the world's most powerful nation throwing its weight about and disregarding the niceties.

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[sparkz]

YANAL. Nor am I, but even I know that McKinnon did his typing in the UK; whether the site is hosted in the UK or the USA (or elsewhere) seems to be generally treated as irrelevant - if the info hosted in COUNTRY_Y, but is available in COUNTRY_X, and it's against COUNTRY_X's laws, and COUNTRY_X is large enough (I think the USA qualifies) then COUNTRY_X's laws are also invoked, simply because COUNTRY_Y will back down to the prosecuting country. Look at the Yahoo!/Ebay stuff about French laws about Nazi memorabilia, for example.

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[AceCaseOR]

Let me put this a different way. If you hacked into the computer systems of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which are not only hosted in Canada, but are also property of the Canadian government, and kept access for 2 years and then got caught, should you be prosecuted in Canada?

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[Cederic]

No, because I'm in the UK. Prosecute me under UK laws or secure your servers.

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[Zemran]

No, he is not a spam king or a scammer, he is just a punk that was playing and embarresed some big guys. Russia and Nigeria would not even consider sending a punk like this to the US. I say forget him and charge the guys that are payed to secure those computer systems with fraud as they were taking the money and not doing their job.

The Spam kings work at what they do and are real criminals, as are the Nigerians. This guy did not even have to work at this. If someone looks at a football game through a hole in the fence do you take him to court or do you fix the fence. The hole is a problem with your security and the guy looking through it is an oportunist not a thief. This guy should not have been so lucky and we should be greatful that it was this guy that showed us the hole in the fence and not a real terrorist.

Forget him, he is nobody, certainly not someone worth all this trouble.

Re:Rebuttal to whining

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, obviously we Americans can't afford to play fair until everyone else stops hating us. Just as soon as you guys all love us, we'll stop oppressing you. HHOS!

Idiot

[gowen]

The article claims that UK hackers are almost all in support of Mr Mckinnon

No it doesn't. It says that some of them who knew him personally are in support of him. It quotes them, too.

The only stupid generalisations are in Whitedust's articles.

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually... the bbc article DID say that earlier this morning. They seem to have changed their mind since that Whitedust posting has done the rounds in some of the underground sites (addict3d.org et all). You gotta remember people; THIS IS THE WEB MEDIA IS CHANGABLE!

Re:Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for slashdot where you can't change your post to add your needed period after 'WEB'.

Re:Idiot

[weierstrass]

and an E to 'changable'..

And you thought hackers already had a bad name?

[Billosaur]

From the original Whitedust article on McKinnon: Free Gary? Please God Don't.

It would seem Gary "Uber Hacker" McKinnon is not so "Uber" after all. After reading his interview on Spy.org.uk it has come to our attention that his technical knowledge and indeed, mental state, is not all that it should be.

I seem to remember that he was afraid they were going to ship him to Guantanamo Bay. But perhaps he'd be better off in a Starfleet detention cell, or maybe aboard the Death Star. The guy is a certifiable kook; the only thing he has to fear is a fair trial where he gets on the stand, rants about the hidden UFO technology (which is doing a wonderful job for us in Iraq among other places) we possess, and the jury figures out that he is a kook and send him away.

Much as I tend to think of hackers as low-lifes for the most part, those that use their abilities indescriminately anyway, I don't think even they should be subjected to this guy's company.

Re:And you thought hackers already had a bad name?

[barefootgenius]

I think the U.S. might be a little more careful with this one. On the one hand they are saying he was smart enough to break into their computer systems and on the other hand saying that what he found there doesn't exist?

I must admit that I to found it strange that he didn't take a screenshot and that he was caught after two years just as he found the information he was looking for. I also found it strange that the day after I heard about this on "Click", there was a news release of, "UFO study finds no sign of aliens".

More info

[exosyst]

The BBC also have a nice profile on Gary at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4715612.stm It appears he was using some kind of Remote desktop system for the remote control and for the most part he seems to have just pinged and attempted access using a perl script! Not exactly the "ultimate hacker" that the US and the media seem to be inferring.

Re:More info

[Anonymous Coward]

As many people brought up, why aren't the idiots who set up these systems being court-marshaled? The attacks he described couldn't even be used against my laptop (OK, so I never installed remote access components -- but these attacks would also fail against my desktop, which does have such components) -- why are they so effective against the DoD?

Re:More info

[exosyst]

I'm shocked that there was no firewall in place what so ever. McKinnon goes on to say that there was a large number of these "hackers" logged onto the network doing equally questionable research into the DoD computer network.

Can't believe he didn't get a snapshot of all those aliens tho :D

Re:More info

[toQDuj]

think relatively. This may very well be their ultimate hacker ;)

B.

Harsh punishment for what exactly?

[digitaldc]

The punishment he faces, up to 70 years in jail, was also too harsh a sentence for the crimes he has confessed to.

Kevin Mitnick did similar things and they went after him too. From Kevin's Wiki entry: "Littman made allegations of journalistic impropriety against Markoff, of overzealous prosecution of Mitnick by the government, of mainstream media over-hyping of Mitnick's actual crimes, and of the legality of Shimomura's involvement in the matter."

So what did McKinnon actually do? Is his harsh sentence for changing/using/leaking/stealing information or just because he embarrassed the Government in the 'post-911' world?

Re:Harsh punishment for what exactly?

[timon]

Is his harsh sentence for changing/using/leaking/stealing information or just because he embarrassed the Government in the 'post-911' world?

*ding ding ding* We have a winner!

Leaking information is seen to be a valuable tool to "counter critics" (if not a critical job function and patriotic act) unless said leak exposes embarrassing details about illegal/unethical programs, incompetence or other unsavory details. Then it's full steam ahead for the prosecution of the leakers and not the target of the leak, unless the embarrassment is at the Katrina level, of course.

Re:Harsh punishment for what exactly?

[shotfeel]

So what did McKinnon actually do?

Depends on who you ask.

Either he harmlessly hacked into a bunch of gov/mil computer systems, doing them a favor by ponting out how weak their security is.

-or-

He hacked into gov/mil computer systems resulting in the shut down of some systems and $millions lost in the ensuing panic and investigations.

Take your pick.

Re:Harsh punishment for what exactly?

[Unski]

Exactly the question I seek answers to. His harsh sentence could be for embarrassing the US administration the 'post-911' world - at least that is a good place to start. The whole things bugs me though, it makes me believe him more than a casually dismissive sentence would. What did he see? Why do they want to gag him so bad? Very few, if any, hackers have been convicted and given custodial sentences, there are several unusual things about this case;

1. He managed to hack into US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Defense for a period of around two years. Equals much embarrassment on the part of those respective organisations, surely?
2. The US has a real hard-on for extradition. Britain has had to work hard in persuading them to let Britain prosecute him instead. There is a real appetite for punishing him amongst the US authorities, but I doubt there are many citizens in the US that care.
3. He talks of suppressed technology - UFO technology, anti-gravity technology and so-called 'Free Energy' technology. I wager that most people would not go around saying such things unless they were convinced they had seen such things. He must surely have been aware his claims would be met with outright derision, that people would not simply believe him and demand more information from government.
4. A classic tactic in a psychological war campaign is that of Decoy, Distract and Trash: Set up some person or group, take them off the trail of something real and important, and trash the person or the subject. McKinnon is totally vulnerable to tactics such as these at the moment - his allegations can be individually explained away by the authorities to the media (decoy), the public can be incited into wanting him punished via the media (distract) and he personally can have his PC and human rights impounded (trash). Therefore a counterbalance to this possibility is just for some people, who ordinarily wouldn't, to actually suppose, in the realms of hypothesis, 'what if McKinnon was right?'.

The whole tide on /. is against him, but dammit I want some of the open-minded /.'ers to speak up and talk about what he is saying he saw.

In related news: Humans committed murders.

[Spy der Mann]

SOME humans, of course.

What we must remember, is that when an article says "People from this or that group", they don't mean ALL the group.

The BBC article doesn't say "ALL UK Hackers support McKinnon". They just say "UK Hackers", as in "SOME UK Hackers".

I read that BBC article, and I agree with them on everything. McKinnon isn't judged because he's a moron, he's judged because he exposed that the most powerful nation in the world has the weakest information security in the world - and the US wants to punish him for that.

Re:In related news: Humans committed murders.

[Rob T Firefly]

If they mean "some UK hackers," they should write "some UK hackers."

I doubt if it had been "UK cabdrivers," "UK insurance adjusters," "UK left-handed people," or "UK women named Susan" referenced it would be immune from such criticism by people who fit the description yet feel differently than portrayed.

Re:In related news: Humans committed murders.

[ScentCone]

What we must remember, is that when an article says "People from this or that group", they don't mean ALL the group...

...he exposed that the most powerful nation in the world has the weakest information security in the world

So, let me get this straight. You lecture people about making sweeping generalizations, and then make a completely baseless, ridiculous statement about how X is the most Y in the world. Do you really think that, say, Uganda or Croatia has a better overall level of IT expertise and security across its entire spectrum of government activities? Are you even listening to yourself?

Re:In related news: Humans committed murders.

[IngramJames]

The BBC article doesn't say "ALL UK Hackers support McKinnon". They just say "UK Hackers", as in "SOME UK Hackers".

Actually, the article says:
"The UK's hacking community has strongly criticised.."

But which hacking community is this? Ahhh..
"...hackers, gathered at the regular London meetings of the UK's hacking community.."

I would imagine that's the monthly 2600 meet in the Trocodero off Picaddilly Circus.

And which hackers (plural) were they?

According to the article, they are "Mark", "Rat" and "Dr K".

So out of the many people gathered at a 2600 (I assume) meeting, three people are representitive of the "Biritsh Hacking Community", eh?

Sorry, but I think that's appallingly misrepresentitive journalism. I too agree with some of the points that those guys, but saying that some blokes picked at random at a meeting are the UK Hacking Community is ridiculous, frankly.

And only three people? Was it a very small meeting, or were other people asked about this issue too? What did they say? If they'd agreed, then why didn't the article say "the others at the meeting were almost all in agreement"? Could it be that Mark, Rat and Mr K represented a minority viewpoint which has been quoted and extended to "The Hacker Community" by an irresponsible journalist?

I guess we'll never know. Unless we go to the next 2600 meet in London.. :)

The journalist, in shourt (and if (s)he cared about accuracy) should have written: "Three UK hackers from London we randomly selected.."

Moving on..

Where I disagree.. "he's been treated appallingly." Sorry, but he broke the law in two countries. He's admitted doing it. The USA want to extradite him? Good luck to them. If a cracker in (say) Russia broke into the MoD computers, I reckon the British Government would want some words with him too, even if the Russians had already initiated their own legal process.

Most crimes are comitted in one country; being able to commit a crime in more than one country at the same time is something quite new, and the law hasn't caught up yet. I don't see any reason why a crime committed in two countries at the same time shouldn't be treated as a crime in both those countries; or crimminals will simply move to countries where the punishment is less harsh, safe in the knowledge that they'll get off easy if they get caught, and then be exempt from extradition.

An analogy - if I take AK-47s from the USA and bring them in a boat to the UK, I would be guilty of exporting arms in the US and of importing arms in the UK. I fail to see why using computer equipment in the UK to crack a system should be treated as the same crime as accessing unauthorised information in that other country.

As to the actual cracking itself - two laws in two countries. The crime was committed in both. He knowingly broke two laws in two countries at the same time. Why should he NOT stand trial on both counts in both places? If you can't do the times, don't do the crimes... so to speak :)

he's judged because he exposed that the most powerful nation in the world has the weakest information security in the world - and the US wants to punish him for that.

IMHO, the USA is entirely within its rights to punish him; and it has nothing to do with scapegoating or showing off or revenge. The guy broke into systems and accessed classified information. That's a crime. The US authorities have no choice but to prepare a case and try to bring it to trial - if they are doing their job correctly. Nothing to do with being angry about having their lax security exposed. When somebody breaks the law quite deliberately, prosecutors don't say "oops, that was embarrassing. Let's just forget about it and take it as a well learned lesson that we should increase our security, and buy linux!"

Rather, they say "The law has been broken; our job is to prosecute lawbreakers. There's a connection here, I'm sure.. hey, Jerry - what do we do when we discover a law-breaker again?"

Or something like that.

Just my twopennth. And at that many words, that's a bargain price!

WTF...LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG HAX

 

Re:WTF...LOL

[cheese-cube]

Oh no, it's Gary Mckinnon! He's come to hack Slashdot! We are all doomed...no wait; it's just another moron. In my defence it's fairly easy to mistake the two.

Re:WTF...LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

XxSlavetoAnguishxX: omg my gf just left me
cheese-cube (910830): that sux man
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: i blame myself only i'm such an ass *cries*
cheese-cube (910830): dude come over to my house and we can cut ourselves together
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: okay *cries*
cheese-cube (910830): omg dashboard confessional has a new cd, i preordered it already
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: dude they're my favorite band to self-mutilate to
cheese-cube (910830): i prefer to cut myself while watching Napoleon Dynamite on my bigscreen
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: dude that movie is so deep. i cry every time i see it
cheese-cube (910830): me too. i hate myself
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: yeah we're such tortured souls, nobody understands how hard life is for us
cheese-cube (910830): yeah we got it tough dude. pass the tissues

Re:WTF...LOL

[cheese-cube]

Sticks and stones mate, sticks and stones.

Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[Attaturk]

"...when in truth as we all know the entire tech community has agreed that Mr Mckinnon is not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker".

I'm sorry but you can sod right off.

I'm both a member of the "tech community" and a "UK hacker" and I certainly do not consider him either an idiot or an attention seeker.
Clearly the guy has some pretty outlandish views. But apart from that his only crime was proving how incredibly poor federal computer security is in the US even long after their biggest ever attack on home soil.

The only real crime worth talking about here is the lack of security. If I was walking down a street in London and saw a door marked "Ministry of Defence. Top Secret. UFO archive." I'd probably keep on walking - unless the door was wide open. Then I might just peek inside out of curiosity. Now if it turned out to be the real deal how the hell could anyone with a brain and a conscience prosecute me for that?

Mr McKinnon is not entirely innocent but he is quite right to be concerned about being extradited to a country that seems to feel that it can suspend the rule of law in order to best fit the fear-mongering 'everyone that's not with us is against us', "we'll get the terr'rists" mentality.

Perhaps if the US didn't have such a ghastly recent history this wouldn't be a problem. But the fact is that noone outside the US is ignorant of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the foreign torture flights - you name it. And the type of people currently running the Pentagon, NSA, CIA and indeed Whitehouse are hardly grounds for giving the US justice system the benefit of any doubt whatsoever.
We know these people have little or no regard for equal human rights. We know these people will happily bend, ignore or entirely circumvent their own laws to suit their own needs.
We know that innocents have been mistreated, tortured or killed during this administration's watch.
We also know that Gary McKinnon is pretty harmless, and unsurprisingly didn't actually manage to do any harm to the world's biggest military and technical power.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if us Brits could still trust americans to practise what they preach then we wouldn't have a problem sending him over for his wrist-slapping. But sadly we can't. And we don't want to see another British subject subjected to media-friendly kangaroo courts that do little more than to quench the american right's thirst for heads to roll - whether they're the right heads or not.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[Mark Hood]

If I was walking down a street in London and saw a door marked "Ministry of Defence. Top Secret. UFO archive." I'd probably keep on walking - unless the door was wide open.

Actually a better analogy would be trying the closed door and discovering it was unlocked - then walking inside instead of raising the alarm.

It's still trespassing, and still a crime. How easy they make it for you doesn't really matter for the purposes of the trial.

I'm sure you'd ask the court to release someone who wandered into your house, read your personal information but didn't take any of it, right?

Mark

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[BenjyD]

Come off it, he continued to access the poorly secured systems for two years without alerting anyone. He accessed military computers, looking for secret files until he got caught, with no apparent intention of reporting anything. What did he expect - a pat on the back and a box of chocolates?

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[MoneyT]

I was walking down a street in London and saw a door marked "Ministry of Defence. Top Secret. UFO archive." I'd probably keep on walking - unless the door was wide open. Then I might just peek inside out of curiosity. Now if it turned out to be the real deal how the hell could anyone with a brain and a conscience prosecute me for that?

Hooray for flawed analogies. The door was not wide open. Secured with a lock that can be opened with any key commonly found in a child's plastic handcuff kit sure, but still locked. Criminal trespass in almost all cases merely requires indication that the premise is not open to the public. I think a login/password would be sufficient indication.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the door was closed but unlocked. And why should he raise the alarm? He isn't getting paid for doing a security audit. And how is he to know that FOIA or similar is not appliccable? Maybe that is why the account is left open.

Meanwhile, what is happening to the admin of these machines? They have done the equivalent of goof off and get pissed as a handcart when they were supposed to be on duty. And IF the 9/11 issue is to come in to it at all, this would make it goofing off in hostile territory. This is a court-martial offence. Any leitennants getting the axe?

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[djmurdoch]

I'm sure you'd ask the court to release someone who wandered into your house, read your personal information but didn't take any of it, right?

Perhaps not, but I wouldn't expect to be able to extradite him from overseas, and I wouldn't expect him to face many years in prison.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you'd ask the court to release someone who wandered into your house, read your personal information but didn't take any of it, right?

Not a day goes by when someone doesn't wonder in while I'm doctoring UFO photos or working on testing the latest ubber engery system. It's a major issue... you would think I would learn to lock my door given i'm part of a major conspiricy.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[dissident_rockstar]

These people? Way to generalize. Not everybody within the States is ignorant of these things either. We have many people, most of whom are idiots... just like every other country. Occasionally our government may go haywire are start pulling some shit; but whose government hasn't yet that's been around more than a century? Personally I think you can detect the growing resentment towards the frivolous attitude our President and his administration (not to mention the lawmaking side of things...) has taken towards our civil rights (and liberties, they ARE different) as reflected in his 38% approval rating. I didn't vote for him, but if he stays in office any longer than his prescribed term I'll be ready to throw down in arms, even in the face of a machine that emulates walking into a 500 degree oven.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[shotfeel]

Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

True.

But how do you know he's only a "Harmless Nutter"? Because that's the way he's been presented?

And how does anyone know "!= a Terrorist" until the purpetrator is found and after an extensive investigation?

His actions are still costing money and causing problems for the US and UK alike. "Harmless"???

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[IngramJames]

I'm sure you'd ask the court to release someone who wandered into your house, read your personal information but didn't take any of it, right?

Perhaps not, but I wouldn't expect to be able to extradite him from overseas, and I wouldn't expect him to face many years in prison.

Not even if the normal punishment for that crime in your country was many years in prison, which was considered reasonable? And if he'd accessed your house not in person but by using a futuristic remote-controlled droid? And if the information he accessed was so important to you that you kept it locked in a safe within a safe (albeit with faulty locks)? And if he repeatedly came back to see if you'd got any new information? And if he was planning to use that information against you?

That's the problem with analogy. We go from National Security Classificaliion Level YouReadYouDie7652Times to living room rug-wine-spillage incidents and it no longer makes any sense.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[PhraudulentOne]

I fully agree with Attaturk.

so1o has some crazy ideas, but he's not an idiot. Just because he broke into some poorly secured computers does not mean he isn't a hacker. It doesn't mean he is not capable of breaking into well-secured boxes. I wouldn't want to be extradited to the US either. I don't trust the US Gov't *at all.* The time they are seeking is ridiculous. 70 yrs is insane. Either so1o did some things that aren't mentioned, or they are trying to make an example of him. If they are trying to set an example, then they should be put in jail for unfair and unjust treatment.

so1o is a nice guy, and I hate to see this happen to him. Yes, he committed a crime, so yes, I suppose he should be punished, but I don't think 70yrs in jail is going to help the situation at all. Perhaps the US Gov't should request that he works for them and helps them with their security - he doesn't deserve to be with rapists and murderers, as he is not a danger to the public. Fine him some realistic amount of money and ban him from internet access or something...

I just hope the UK can come up with a fair and just way of dealing with the situation - I'm pretty sure everyone knows that the USA cannot.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[Attaturk]

OK so that metaphor wasn't water-tight. However note that I absolutely did not say that he did not commit a crime. He found vulnerabilities and a lack of passwords protecting remote administration services (that should never have been left running) on the space agency and air force computers belonging to a foreign power.

He failed to report them, and he continued to access them.
Fair enough. He's nicked. It's a fair cop etc.

I have no problem with him being fairly prosecuted. If you read my post again you'll see that my problem is rather that we simply can't trust the United States to fairly prosecute him any more. His charges are likely to be inflated, dramatised and exaggerated - in fact if you listen to the hype we know this to be the case already. Quoting one of his prosecutors: "the biggest military computer hack of all time"
Riiiiight. Just like Richard Reid was an elite Al Qaeda special agent, Moussaoui was a criminal mastermind and Saddam Hussein had deadly global threat anthrax super-powers.

It's very difficult for us Brits to trust people that say stuff like this, even when they're supposed to be representing your biggest ally.

If the real threats are regarded as uncatchable, untreatable or inexplicable - i.e. Osama, Kim Jong Il, Sudanese government etc. - and the hangers on and wannabe anti-Americans are treated as serious threats, absolutely nothing is being done to improve US security.

I'd just like the US authorities to stop vilifying relatively harmless nutters and to instead focus on the real serious threats, which I accept may be a little more complicated and a little harder to media manage.

Until then it's probably safest for trans-Atlantic relations if British subjects are tried in British courts whether or not the U.S. considers them terr'rists.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[ratboy666]

In a word, no.

The information is PUBLISHED. Made available. With default controls.

So, the CORRECT analogy would be: A sign on your house that reads "If you have the key, feel free to browse inside".

And, leave the door unlocked, or the key hanging beside the door.

Is THAT trespass?

Ratboy

PS. He IS a nutter, but the charges should be dismissed.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

Trespassing (in general) is not a crime in England. Breaking and entering is. Criminal damage is. But in the case of unoccupied unlocked premises, someone can come in off the streets and live there, claiming squatters rights; and if they live there long enough they will get ownership of the property(!). That's why we lock our doors when we leave the house :-)

There probably is some law about being on military property though, e.g. greenham common.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[djmurdoch]

If I considered that punishment to be normal or reasonable I wouldn't have complained about it, would I?

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[Mark Hood]

You're right - I did read all your post, and I only answered part of it. I didn't want to get drawn into a debate on the severity of the punishment because he's not been tried yet.

Whether I think 70 years in jail or daily beatings in Guantanamo are fair is not yet relevant - he's not been put on trial yet. All that's happened is that the US has asked the UK to release him to them, so that he can be tried.

Yes, the crime he's accused of is probably out of kilter with the maximum penalty - so his defence attorney should argue that, when he gets to trial. After all, the 9/11 '20th hijacker' didn't get the death penalty, which was a possibility.

And why shouldn't the UK hand him over to the US? He did the 'damage' in the US, from the UK. Are you saying Bin Laden should be tried in Afghanistan, because that's where he was when the 9/11 attacks took place? Saddam was tried in Iraq for crimes he committed there - because they were against the people of Iraq...

Mark

And PS, I'm British. I wouldn't want to be tried in the US as a terrorist - just one more reason not to muck about in US government computers...

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[deserttrail]

Go analogy wars!

No, a better analogy, IMHO, is that you left your car unlocked and running in your driveway. Some crazy walks by, sees your car, hops in and drives it around the block.

Is THAT trespass?

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

[Anonymous Coward]

No, i got a better one...

You get drunk, you drop your pants and place a sign round your waist saying "I'm drunk. If you r@aped my @ss I'd never know."

Is THAT trespass?

i was never asked for my opinion...

[Anonymous Coward]

another question is, who is this "entire tech community" that is of one mind on any topic at all?

sounds like it could be related to those studies sponsored by "?company"

Re:i was never asked for my opinion...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://science.slashdot.org/science/06/05/06/12472 36.shtml

That entire post seems pretty thumbs down to Mckinnon. And that is the post quoted by Whitedust... so er Slashdot was asked, they thumbed down.

Don't misunderstand this.

[Anonymous Coward]

We fully support the prosecution and punishment of McKinnon, who is a self-confessed criminal and a notorious cracker.

What we do not support is his extradition to the United States of America; in the light of the USA's abysmal human rights record, openly xenophobic policies, and rampant corruption problems, we consider it highly implausible that he could receive a fair trial there. Furthermore, we reject US law as tending to cruel and draconian punishments, and we deplore the condition of US prisons, which Amnesty International ranks as among the most brutal and inhuman in the allegedly-civilised world.

McKinnon should be tried and imprisoned in the United Kingdom, which is where he was when he committed his crimes. It's as simple as that.

"I didn't mean to" != "Valid excuse"

[cheese-cube]

We also know that Gary McKinnon is pretty harmless, and unsurprisingly didn't actually manage to do any harm to the world's biggest military and technical power.Just because he didn't mean any harm doesn't change what he allegedly did. What if someone shoots someone else and then swears that they didn't mean to do any harm? Should they be let off? Here's a hint: no. You do the crime then you should damn well do the time.

Look on the bright side....

[Anonymous Coward]

If he'd been caught hacking Germany's millitary computers.
They may have stuck him in a shared cell with (cannibal) Armin Meiwes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4752797.st m

I can imagine why it's happening

[mustafap]

Security Advisor: "Hackers got into our computers again sir"

Bush: "Damm it! Where did they get the technology to break our secret codes?"

Security Advisor: "Actually, we left the systems wide open. Our IT specialists are too lazy to set passwords"

Bush: "So how do we stop these sly foreign devils?"

Security Advisor: "Lets just grab one and stick him in jail for life. No one at home will care. It might put the rest off"

Bush: "Or we could train our guys to use password?"

Security Advisor: "You'r talking nonsense again, sir"

Re:I can imagine why it's happening

[ajpr]

I thought your post was really funny. Why did it get modded redundant? :(

Re:I can imagine why it's happening

[mustafap]

wanna guess ;o)

Re:I can imagine why it's happening

[Cheapy]

...and there folks is Bush's only documented act of critical thinking.

Re:I can imagine why it's happening

[ajpr]

argh thats too much irony for my head to use :]

I BELIEVE HIM

[CranberryKing]

And I've already spoken about this. Believe it.

two different issues

[cecirdr]

The summary posted said:

"in truth as we all know the entire tech community has agreed that Mr Mckinnon is not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker.'"

---------

Condemming Mr McKinnon has nothing to do with how you feel about the trial. The article says the hacker community condems the *trial*. Being a "nutter" should have no bearing on how your trial is carried out.

Re:two different issues

[romrunning]

"Condemming Mr McKinnon has nothing to do with how you feel about the trial. The article says the hacker community condems the *trial*. Being a "nutter" should have no bearing on how your trial is carried out."

Being a nutter does help with the mentally incompetent/criminally insane defense, however.

Queries

[berenixium]

What if he's right?

And

What if he actually is sent down in The States to 70 years hard time, after being ejected from his home country? What portent will that hold for UK 'security-minded' computer enthusiasts in the future?

Re:Queries

[PhraudulentOne]

What if he actually is sent down in The States to 70 years hard time, after being ejected from his home country?

The hackers of the world will unite and hack the planet - duh.

Re:Queries

[berenixium]

And then the Aliens will invade and bust him out. ;P

Like Dmitry Sklyarov?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

So that people the world over are subject to US law? So that people excercising their civil rights in their home countries can be dragged off to the US, be given a fair trial and hanged, because they offended the moral sensiblities of the mighty nation of manifest-destians? Like Dmitry Sklyarov, who was held accountable for simply excercising his rights in his own home country?

I for one would rather not be dragged off to the US to be judged and condenmed for excercising my rights in my home nation. Over here, people can drink after they're 18. Should they be dragged off for infringements of the oh so higher and purer US statutes on alcohol consumption?

You might consider that trollish, but it just amazes me how arrogant some americans can be in their attitudes towards other countries and their judicial systems, paticularly in these days of Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay. Your country is not exactly a shining example of enlighted jurisprudence.

MOD PARENT UP.

[iogan]

If it was someone from my country who did this, they'd have to pry him/her from my cold, dead hands before they could extradite that person. Whether or not this guy is an idiot is really not the issue. At all.

Fresh out of respect and sympathy

[EddyPearson]

I live in the UK, I'm not so blasse as to call myself a Hacker, but I certainly stick to many hacker trends. When I first heard about this case, I did feel sorry for the guy, but after a little digging on the matter and having seen him in interview, I've lost all respect for him.
If for a second you take what he says to be true, you're left in a world where the US govenment is keeping the world poverty stricken, regularly airbrushing photo evidence of UFOs out of satelite images, has a cure for almost all known diseases (and doesn't use it) and develop weapons that make the AK47 look like a broken watergun. What is more the number of people who'd need to be involved in a conspiracy this big would be WELL into the thousands.
Ok, the US are bad, their policies are misguided and their president can barely string a sentance together, but fuck, this isn't Stargate SG1, its a pack of LIES.
Have fun in the US Gary.

Re:Fresh out of respect and sympathy

[Unski]

If for a second you take what he says to be true, you're left in a world where the US govenment is keeping the world poverty stricken, regularly airbrushing photo evidence of UFOs out of satelite images, has a cure for almost all known diseases (and doesn't use it) and develop weapons that make the AK47 look like a broken watergun. What is more the number of people who'd need to be involved in a conspiracy this big would be WELL into the thousands.
I absolutely, sincerely and honestly have no problem envisaging those possibilities. I really don't. I don't think in the Information age, in 2006, that the things he describes sound that far-fetched. I totally think (if for one second we suppose there is truth) that it fits in with the current administrations M.O. that they could have free power and evidence of aliens and keep it all under wraps. Never under-estimate the power of greed and corruption in the US.

Re:Fresh out of respect and sympathy

[EddyPearson]

grow up dude.

Re:Fresh out of respect and sympathy

[Unski]

Why do I need to grow up? I was sincere in my beliefs, still am. They just happen to disagree with your flacid, neutral, USA-apologist viewpoint.

Re:Fresh out of respect and sympathy

[EddyPearson]

This USA-apologist is pissed off with the US. The US government is just that, a government, its not a sci-fi.

Check out Whitedust -- conflict of interest?

[Anonymous Coward]

The anonymous Slashdot description suggests that Whitedust has some "interesting commentary" about the McKinnon case. Well it doesn't, in fact it's completely devoid of any substance at all, and merely gives a contrary opinion which it doesn't even bother to justify.

This makes me think that Whitedust is merely profile whoring, the so-called "Whitedust Security" trying to show that it's against "all those nasty hacker types".

Well actually, Whitedust, you're just making yourselves look stupid. A professional security team would be more interested in the weakness of the security measures that were in place, and not in crucifying an amateur who merely exposed those weaknesses.

Yeah, and I've said the opposite

[suso]

I was actually just trying to be funny. I've already said that he's a moron and still believe that he is.

There's your mistake

[GuloGulo2]

"So, by this logic..."

We're talking about law and international relations. What logic?

Sense

[agentcdog]

It is apparent that someone needs to add some sense to this conversation. You can argue all you want about "where" this crime took place... the fact is, the "victims" were on US soil when the crime occurred. So to say that the US shouldn't conduct the trial is a bit one-sided. Also, this (as much as it's a joke to you) is a matter of national security.
Now if the US does treat him fairly eveyone is gonna yell that they are just trying to save face. You have condemned the US not on its actions, but on your own supposition. Judge the US by what it does (meaning, wait till he's sentenced to bitch about his horrible sentence). In all of my history as a US citizen, I have seen enough to beleive that the courts here are legit and fair. They are not perfect, but surely no one assumes that GB has perfect courts.
One more thing: I assure you that I (along with almost all of the rest of the country) would support the reverse case. If someone hacked GB's computers, I would expect them to be sent there for trial.

Re:Sense

[Richard_J_N]

But he didn't do anything harmful. Hacking (in the sense of "just taking a look around, out of curiosity" may be illegal, but it shouldn't be. If anything, it's a good thing, because it keeps admins on their toes, and slightly less vulnerable to computer criminals.

BTW, people in the UK *are* judging the US on its actions. We've seen quite enough of 'the war on terror' to realise that the USA is not to be trusted with legal due process.

Re:Sense

[Wizard Drongo]

Well, you see there would be the problem. The reason why I wrote to my MP, MSP and MEP's, demanding all of them to have this man denied extradition was very simple. He's a moron, probably slightly deranged, and uses 'hacking tools' that even 12 year-old script kiddies would reject. But here's the point:
We have an extradite treaty with the United States of America. We've signed it, ratified, enshrined it in law and everything.

You didn't.

Tomorrow morning, a hacker in Florida, or New York or anywhere in the US could hack into the MoD's system, launch some nukes maybe, or send some troops to invade China or something (well, the hacker couldn't really, since our SysAdmins have a deep and arcane knowledge of something called a "password"), or maybe bomb London, and legally speaking, there ain't a damn thing we could do to have him extradited, cause you didn't sign the treaty, Why should we honour a treaty you can't even be bothered to sign? Then of course there's the issue that we have a law that says we're not supposed to extradite people to countries where you aren't guaranteed a fair trial (Guantanamo!), or where we aren't assured the suspect won't face the death penalty (normally not a problem when we deal with the USA, even for murderers, yet interestingly, the State Dept haven't given us that assurance in this case.)

Basically, this is more about the US having dubious fair-trial practices, dodgy military trials, the possiblility of a media show-trial for a foreign 'terrorist' and all that sorta thing than it is about a sad loner in a London bedsit wanking off to the idea of finding "alien" shit inside a US defence network. Maybe he did. I'd assume it was filed in the same archive as other 'secret' hidden or forgotten data, like the US Constitution and the right to a fair trial......

Re:Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

In all of my history as a US citizen, I have seen enough to beleive that the courts here are legit and fair.

Former Illinois Governor (and future prisoner) Ryan stopped executions here when it was found that half the people on death row were proven innocent. A few cops, prosecutors, etc are now in prison for faking evidence, etc.

You might click on a few of these links:

Experts question arson convictions
Texas Case Spurs Arson Conviction Questions
Arson experts cite bad evidence in '04 execution

They detail how the "experts" used junk science. Imagine your house burns down and your family dies, and you get the death penalty for murdering them, even though the fire was an accident.

Bad enough his family died, worse that they killed him for the "murder" based on evidence that didn't prove anything.

A friend's brother spent five years in federal prison for loaning money to a cocaine dealer, never saw or touched any of the actual drug. The dealer went to prison for two years.

There's a fellow serving life inder California's "three strikes" law for stealing a candy bar!

I fear my "justice" system. You should as well.

Re:Sense

[IamTheRealMike]

In all of my history as a US citizen, I have seen enough to beleive that the courts here are legit and fair. They are not perfect, but surely no one assumes that GB has perfect courts.

Your legal system is more than imperfect, it's an international disgrace - what joke of a legal system is simply ignored by politicians when convenient for them to do so? Answer: Americas. There are plenty of examples elsewhere in this thread.

If someone hacked GB's computers, I would expect them to be sent there for trial.

You might expect it but you'd be disappointed. IRA terrorists have a long history of fundraising in the United States, some of them are still there today, yet they will not be extradited as the US simply does not do that. Incidentally the US govt was implicitly supporting terrorism in this way for a long time.

McKinnon, whatever he believes, should not be tried in the US. It wouldn't be safe, and he would certainly be unfairly treated by an administration that is way, way out of control.

Re:Sense

[Cederic]

The UK do have a treaty which permits extradition from the US to the UK.

It's existed for a long time.

What we also have is a need to provide evidence before extradition can take place. This is where there's a mismatch - the US don't need to provide evidence before extraditing to the US.

Re:Sense

[tehcyder]

In all of my history as a US citizen, I have seen enough to beleive that the courts here are legit and fair.

Funniest troll I've read for a while.

Re:Sense

[Aldric]

We've seen enough of your government's actions over the last few years. We don't trust your government, legal system, and especially your idiot leader. As far I'm concerned, the UK should tear up the extradition treaty to the US.

White Dust's writing .. can't .. understand

[Hoss Z]

Please tell me that White Dust is not a native english speaker, and that his editorial is not a sign of where language is going in the future.

In perspective...

[Jimmni]

In the UK a man can rape an 8 year old girl nine times over a period of years, threatening and intimidating her and get 6 years in prison. I'd love to see how they could justify letting a "hacker" who did no malicious damage and did not profit from his activities get 70 years...

Re:In perspective...

[Lifthrasir]

I'm sure that once the rest of the prison population finds out what he's in for that 6 years will be a lot worse than it sounds.

However, he really should be executed. There is obviously no place in society for him and keeping him in jail is just a waste of money.

Re:In perspective...

[Anonymous Coward]

a man can rape an 8 year old girl nine times over a period of years

Then he deserves credit for inventing the time machine!

Britain is Americas' poodle..

[giorgosts]

If the US had an issue with the guy, they should have sued him and he sould have been tried under British law, with the US state or the US military being the complainant. There are countries (eg. Germany) that their constitutions prohibit the extradiction of their nationals to foreign countries. In Britain there is no constitution, so the Government can do whatever they want with their nationals. The US is more protective of their people abroad. Do you know that the US exempted their nationals from the International Court Of Hague?

Re:Britain is Americas' poodle..

[Anonymous Coward]

It's worse than that actually, I forget the details but the UK signed a ONE WAY extradition treaty with the US a while ago, i.e. the US can extradite who they want (IIRC for certain "terrorist" offences) without even presenting evidence but we don't get reciprocal rights to extradite from them! Why anyone thought this made sense I don't know.

Re:Britain is Americas' poodle..

[nogginthenog]

In Britain there is no constitution

Erm, yes there is, and it's been around for about 600 years. It's not written down in 1 document like the US version. Mostly it consists of Statute Law (created by parliament) & Common Law (created by the courts). See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_constitutiona l_law

Britain does not extradite if the penalty includes death.

P.S. What do you think large parts of the US constitution is based on? You might want to look up the Magna Carta...

conspiracy of thousands?

[said_captain_said_wo]

a conspiracy this big would be WELL into the thousands

I wonder how many people knew about the development of the hydrogen bomb? If you structure a project in certain ways, just a small number of people need to see the "big picture" while the others just see parts.

Secrets online?

[glas_gow]

I've got a friend who works for the UK MoD, at a purely administrative level, it has to be said, and he was telling me they don't have external email or internet connections on any of their networks. It strikes me as odd, where Military networks are concerned, that US DoD departments would have anything but the most pedestrian information accessible from the outside, like for instance which catering company is getting awarded the doughnut contract (maybe Gary mistook a closeup of a doughnut). It doesn't make sense for them to have anything else online. The US military has the highest budget of something like the next ten closest states combined, and has the preponderance of the elite IT education centres from which to handpick network security staff.

Gary McKinnon is obviously a few pakora short of the full bhoona, and I doubt he accessed anything noteworthy at all. He should be tried accordingly, with distain but with restraint. Personally I'd like to see him tried under the 1990 (UK) Computer Misuse Act, as I'm interested in the law as it stands in my own country, and there have been no really juicy cases prosecuted under this act. If he is tried in the US it'll probably be more because of the damage to prestige factor of the US military, in PR terms, than any quantative damage done to national security. As for flying saucers, if they existed don't you think the US would use them to beam themselves out of Iraq ASAP.

Re:Secrets online?

[Anonymous Coward]

glas_gow (961896)
I'm afraid your friend is woefully misinformed. The UK MoD does have external email and it does have internet connections. More worryingly some have their pc's bridging 2 networks at once, the internet and the defence network. As is always the way, you are only as secure as the people you employ and the majority of MoD techies are ex-military, with poor skills and who are trained to follow orders exactly, without question or thought. The ones who are not, are contractors who can get frustratingly reigned in.
They seem more concerned about making sure that on the surface everything is secure, but underneath it's a joke.
Like most people I always thought, rather naively, that the MoD et al would be so secure and security conscious that it would be very difficult if not impossible to hack them.
Very sadly it isn't the case. And if you dwelled on it, you just wouldn't sleep at night.
Rant over and probably the wrong forum, for which I apologise.

If he dies go over to the US this could be bad...

[hine_uk]

...not onlyfor him but for the precedent it will create. we are all watching this case and you can bet that the RIAA and MPAA are watching this and rubbing their hands. If you can prosecute a citizen of a foreign country its only a small step to start extraditing users of PTP.

As fair as I am concerned, he is a citizen of the UK, he accessed the servers from his physical connection from the UK, he should do his time in the UK.

Its in no-ones interest if he is sent to the US, ours as well as his.

Who is the authority to decide this ? :

[unity100]

"the entire tech community has agreed that Mr Mckinnon is not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker.'"

Just who are these 'entire' people ? Is there a power in the world to get ahold of 'entire people' in the tech community and poll them ?

It more seems like a sentence very much like the overly religious people use to 'disprove' darwing - "Entire science community now refuse darwin's theories" they say -

Having a screenshot or a jpg might have made kinnon a dead man by now.

I personally believe everything possible with a government. Everything.

Honey Pot

[bermudatriangleoflov]

Would'nt it be a great twist to find out that he had really broken into honey pot systems that had UFO garbage strewn all over the place to entice would-be Fox Mulder's?

Big Budget != Common Sense

[woodsrunner]

Look at the quagmires they have gotten into, if they had common sense they wouldn't be having the problems in Iraq that they are. The thing is you go into a war with the common sense you have, not the common sense you want.

Sure the US military uses a couple of separate networks beside the internet, but they are not completely separated. It has been well documented that there are many insecure machines out there attached to the internet as well as the military networks so guys can get email and use the web. Would you trust Gomer Pyle with this sort of set up?

A guy like Gary McKinnon, also unencumbered by something like common sense, would have no problem waltzing in. In fact, his cluelessness probably made it easier for him to understand the lay of the land. This is what is embarassing for the US. Not only did he waltz in, but it took so long to track him down despite the fact that he was hacking from his home dialup machine.

'Free Energy' technology

[digitaldc]

and so-called 'Free Energy' technology

You're right, at $3 a gallon in the US for gas, I can see why a plan for Free Energy would be deemed devastating to our economy.
Or maybe it would be a great thing to share this Free Energy plan as a wonderful and kind benefit to all mankind, as well as the health of our air, water, land and seas? LOL maybe that will happen.

The History Channel had a UFO Files documentaryon Alien Engineering last night with 'alien' technology they theorized could exist. An anti-gravity, super speed, silent hovering flying saucer. Maybe they have all the schematics and plans for this, but won't release it because us puny humans simply couldn't use it properly.

Re:'Free Energy' technology

[Unski]

I'd simply respond to that by pointing out to you the interesting read to be had at www.disclosureproject.org. If it's bullshit, it is at least thorough and mildly imaginative bullshit.

Mildly Imaginative BS

[digitaldc]

From that link:

From a November 21, 1950 (authenticated) top secret Canadian document: I [the author] made discreet enquiries through the Canadian Embassy staff in Washington who were able to obtain for me the following information:
a. The matter is the most highly classified subject in the United States Government, rating higher even than the H-bomb.
b. Flying saucers exist.
c. Their modus operandi is unknown but concentrated effort is being made by a small group headed by Dr Vannevar Bush.
d. The entire matter is considered by the United States authorities to be of tremendous significance.

Those Bushes are behind everything I tell you lol

Raise Alarm to whom?

[Maow]

If I was walking down a street in London and saw a door marked "Ministry of Defence. Top Secret. UFO archive." I'd probably keep on walking - unless the door was wide open.

Actually a better analogy would be trying the closed door and discovering it was unlocked - then walking inside instead of raising the alarm.

Raising the alarm to whom? My local constabulary? Not their jurisdiction.

US Gov't? Why? Not my duty, not my country, not my problem. Heck, might make just as much sense to report it to, say, the Chinese military establishment, not the American one.

If someone were to find a security hole in the Chinese military's computer networks, should they notify the Chinese government? If it was an American citizen and they did what McKinnon did, would gov't of USA extradite US citizen to China to face several decades of imprisonment? I think not.

Guess my point is, these cross-jurisdictional incidents are tricky. But 70 years is what the SysAdmin ought to be facing, not this McKinnon bloke, though I wouldn't say he's innocent of everything.

Re:Raise Alarm to whom?

[Mark Hood]

OK, fair point. What would you do in the (admittedly over simplified) analogy of the house? Tell the local police? Maybe... Or maybe leave a note for the home owner...

Since the crackers who call themselves 'hackers' often try and use the defence 'our activities are only making security better' then that's a good idea. Once he got in, he knew he shouldn't have been there - whether the security was 'good enough' or not.

His defence was 'I didn't do any harm, I was looking for evidence the US government was hiding things' - I still wonder what he'd say if I was sat watching his DVD collection when he came home one night. Or viewing all his porn. 'It's cool dude, you didn't break anything'.

Mark

bollocks

[weierstrass]

there is a crime of trespass in England. You might be thinking of Scotland, a country to the north of England, where there is no law of trespass, only crimes of breaking and entering, criminal damage, etc..

Re:Medical help for what?

[j.a.mcguire]

He is a little deluded, not psychotic.

600 years of no government restrain

[giorgosts]

From the wiki you posted: The informal nature of the constitution has been conducive to a lack of the concept of "constitution government" or "constitutionalism" in the United Kingdom. The "government" (i.e. the executive) is drawn from the legislature, Parliament, since the UK has a Parliamentary system of government. The doctrine of "limited government", central in all written constitutions, is not prominent in the UK constitution, nor is separation of powers or formal "checks and balances". Since the government is said to be "fused" with Parliament, and virtually every government has a majority, governments have no formal restraint on their legislative power. This is only broken if government Members of Parliament vote against a government bill, which due to a strong whip system had, until 2005, not occurred since 1986. The phrase elective dictatorship was introduced in 1976 to highlight the enormous potential power of government afforded by the constitution.

Whatever happened to properly labeling?

[Aaron England]

They're crackers, not hackers.

Re:Medical help for what?

[LWATCDR]

He is claiming to see hands moving across his screen...
Sounds pretty psychotic to me.
How about some counseling then?

Follow the law only when it suits

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing how the current UK Government can ignore laws when it suits them!
It is illegal under EU and British law to extradite anyone to the US as they still have the death penalty. I know he wouldn't be sentenced to death but it's still illegal to extradite him regardless of sentence he is likely to recieve. Even if it was a $1 fine and a slap on the wrists. They still can't send him.
If they do they are just as bad as he is. Ignoring laws that don't suit them!

Re:If he dies go over to the US this could be bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometime in the near future Americans will be extradited to China for hacking Chinese computers. It's called blowback.

what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think this guy should go to jail for noticing the admins had no password? What the hell... and if he was seeking attention why didn't anyone notice for two years... and how was he being destructive if nobody noticed...

Abso-Effin-Lutely!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like that triggerman Cheney!

Oh, wait. ...

Nevermind.

Case in point

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government has actively worked against a proven cure for cancer. B17 is the only vitamin in existance which is a 'banned substance' there and in several other bootlicking countries (AU).

Interesting, no?

this calls for a book!?

[lon3st4r]

The govt. should catch the people who set in blank passwords for administrators as defaults first! This is even worse then getting tripped by a script-kiddie! They're addressing the wrong problem by putting McKinnon on trial.

And the media should stop paying attention to McKinnon. Next we know, he'll be out pushing an autobiographical book... "how 2 hack the us military computers"! lol :)

Gary McKinnon

[hackershandbook]

The whole point is that Gary should NOT be extradited for data crimes commited in the UK. We have laws against that kind of thing and are quite capable of dishing out punishment in the UK - without imposing the cruel and unusual punishment of extraditing him and sentencing him in a foreign and hostile country.

We don't support Gary's actions - I personally think he was a little daft - but we do support opposition to extradition and a trial under US law.

He should not be made an example of to cover up the shortcomings in the US MILNET security systems - 2 years for crying out loud!! default passwords for crying out loud!!

Come on - a great hacker he is NOT - but egg on faces all over MILNET admins - and thats the reason they are gunning for him.

Why so hard a sentence: Underground

[KlaymenDK]

If you want to know about hacking, read "Underground" (underground-book.com) for a peek into some 'venerable' old-school hackers.

Some of these blokes were actually stealing, but even the ones who were 'merely sight-seeing' got pretty harsh sentences. Part of the reason is that, since it cannot be allowed (because one has to draw a line; spying and sight-seeing are indistinguishable and cannot be left to the morals of the perpetrator), it must be policed, and this kind of activity takes insane amounts of police work. We all know how well-funded the police is (cough), so it's understandable that they want to effectively deter it.

Unfair perhaps, but still understandable.

The 53rd

[berenixium]

I think that this situation demonstrates just how much that Britain is actually part of Northern America.

The U.K. is America's Bee-Yatch. And a slapped-around-quite-a-lot-to-know-her-place one, as well.

From the at-least-use-C++ dept. ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you using C-style comments to quote text? WTF kind of moron are you?

Re:From the at-least-use-C++ dept. ...

[DenDude]

/* Why are you using C-style comments to quote text? WTF kind of moron are you? */

Well let me ask you this retard.... Could you tell at a glance what was original text and what was quoted? I thought so... It seems a bridge is missing it's troll. Go back and tell the three billy goats gruff that I said hi.

Re:From the at-least-use-C++ dept. ...

[Anonymous Coward]

/* Well let me ask you this retard.... Could you tell at a glance what was original text and what was quoted? */

int not_the_original_ac(void) {

Brilliant;

Let's make up formatting rules based on programming and then defend them by pointing out that it is technically possible to understand the message in spite of the formatting;

There is no need \ however \ to stop at mere formatting;

As you can see \ I have done some innovations of my own regarding expanding your idea to punctuation;

You'll agree \ obviously \ that my message is still quite legible \ even moreso \ perhaps \ given that standard C is far superior to the English language when it comes to communication;

I trust that you will recognize the necessity of these improvements and adopt them immediately;

evntl I expct we cn rvltns spllng s wll b shrtnng wrds as we d wth vrbls n C;

o brv nw wrld \ tht hs sch wrtng n t!

return 0;

}

Re:You're really bitching about a comment style?

[DenDude]

/* I trust that you will recognize the necessity of these improvements and adopt them immediately; */

I'm not sure if you or the original_ac(void) are aware of this, but I haven't asked anyone to "adopt" my style of comments. My point is only that it is easy to see what is quoted and what was original. Really, what's so hard about that? When I do tell people to adopt my style, I will feel a more compelling need to explain why it's better. Until then, my opinion is all that matters when it comes to my posts. Besides, the asshole called me a moron. So fuck him.

/* Let's make up formatting rules based on programming and then defend them by pointing out that it is technically possible to understand the message in spite of the formatting;*/

And the point is not that it is possible to understand the message in spite of the formatting, it's that it is easier to understand the message because of the formatting.