Slashdot Mirror
UK Hacker loses Extradition Case
SnakeOil Steve writes to tell us that Gary McKinnon, the alleged hacker who broke into Army, Air Force, Navy, and NASA systems, has just lost his extradition case. From the article: "'My intention was never to disrupt security. The fact that I logged on and there were no passwords means that there was no security,' McKinnon said, outside the hearing at London's Bow Street Magistrates Court. 'I was looking for UFOs.'"
The judgement opens up the option for his extradition.
The decision is now with our Home Secretary.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
I don't think anyone questions that what the guy did was wrong. The question is, should he face extradition to the US and a possible 70 year jail sentance,
You'll probably get modded for that. Of course how unjust it would be for that 70 year sentence. Oh my god - the US is so evil. 70 YEARS!
Except it's a max of 5 years. Which I would say is lenient for stealing 950 passwords from military computers. He should get 10 years tacked on for the crime of being a fucking idiot.
How would Bush feel if someone tried to prosectue an American for saying that Iran's leadership was being foolish and that they are wrong - that's illegal in Iran - where's the extradition to Iran - you can't have it both ways
Your understanding of International Law is woefully inadequate/misinformed. The US has extradition treaties with countries they determine are lawful, like the UK. The US does not consider Iran a country that would respect American Law, and therefore have not agreed to an extradition treaty with them. Yes, in fact you can have it both ways.
If you'd checked, you'd know that in fact Iran has in the past issued warrants calling for the arrest of foreign citizens. Those warrants carry no weight outside of Iran and the countries (if any) that have extradition treaties with it.
by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
The system was comprimised. You don't just reboot them- you need to reimage the system to make sure nothing was left behind by the intruder. For a military system, they probably did a forensic search to see what he had access to and what information may have been comprimised. That takes time.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Does the US ever ship anyone overseas for trial ?
Yes. http://seoul.usembassy.gov/december_24_2002.html
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Your understanding of International Law is woefully inadequate/misinformed.
And yours appears woefully naive. International law means "The US gets what it wants, everyone else can go pound sand".
Not saying I consider it right, just callin' it as I see it.
The US has extradition treaties with countries they determine are lawful, like the UK.
Or, say, Italy? Oh, but we just can't let them have 22 CIA operatives charged with kidnapping and torture on Italian soil.
Or Venezuela, seeking the extradition of a KNOWN terrorist the US has decided to harbor, because he only terrorized Cuba? How well would that fly if the UK responded to the US request "Oh, well, we'd love to, and normally we disapprove of cracking military computers, but well, he only attacked the US, not anyone that matters"?
Or Spain, currently seeking the extradition of three US soldiers for the murder of a Spanish reporter?
Or India, who currently wants Warren Andersen (former CEO of Union Carbide) for that little Bhopal mess?
I could go on.
So... Yeah. International law... Whatever helps you sleep.
No, they have an almost unprecedented asymmetric extradition treaty.
(Wikipedia)
This is the reason for the opposition to Gary's extradition, and that of the NatWest Three, and so on. The UK basically handed a huge chunk of sovereignty right over to the Americans, basically saying "If you want a British citizen, you can have him bound hand and foot."
my password really is 'stinkypants'