'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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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"

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".

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: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: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

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.

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

[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

[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: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.