'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.

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.

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: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: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: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.

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.