Slashdot Mirror


Gary McKinnon Loses Extradition Appeal

G0rAk writes "The BBC is reporting that hacker Gary McKinnon has lost his High Court appeal against extradition to the United States. The fight is not yet over yet: 'We will certainly be applying for this court to certify a point of law of public importance and to grant leave.' said his lawyer, referring to alleged threats by US authorities. One New Jersey prosecutor apparently has stated that that 'he would fry,' a statement that would be among issues raised when they take they appeal to the House of Lords."

32 of 380 comments (clear)

  1. New Jersey by BigDaddyNyth · · Score: 3, Funny

    One from New Jersey prosecutor apparently has stated that that 'he would fry' I thought they wacked people in New Jersey
    1. Re:New Jersey by StormReaver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "...if someone offends your sense of social stratification, you manufacture evidence and fry him."

      In this case, there was no manufactured evidence. Gary admitted the crimes, but tried to justify them with the age old crap of "curiosity". Curiosity with disregard for others is a pale excuse even for a minor, and no excuse for a grown adult like Gary. He didn't click a link on a web site thinking it was going to take him to Slashdot, only to be tricked into breaking into NASA's (and other government agencies') computers. He intentionally broke into their computers, knowing full well that it was illegal in both the U.S. and Britain, and weak security does not excuse that. He is guilty, and he has admitted that.

      That said, the penalties in the U.S. for intentional unauthorized access where no damage was done are ridiculously harsh. At his age, the proposed punishment is a life sentence for relatively minor law violations. While I think extradition would otherwise be reasonable is this case, I also think the statements made by the New Jersey prosecutor indicate an absurdity of justice which are enough in my mind to allow him to be punished at home. Perhaps something along the lines of 180 days in the local jail and a few tens of thousands of pounds in fines -- enough to hurt and discourage him, but not so much as to ruin his life.

    2. Re:New Jersey by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If he'd lived in the US and hacked into UK government computers, do you think there'd be any chance at all of him being extradited? No, it would be ruled unconstitutional.

      On those grounds alone the request should be refused as all such requests should be, until a balanced treaty is in place (and ratified).

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    3. Re:New Jersey by StealthPenguin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps not, but the US government would probably punish the American for hacking UK computers anyway.

      Besides, you all seem to be forgetting that the individual was convicted of a crime. "Boo-hoo" if some tough words made the convict soil his pants -- maybe he should have thought about that before he hacked the computers.

  2. Interesting comparison by clickclickdrone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the UK the CPS decided there wasn't enough evidence to bother pushing for a trial and prior to that he'd been warned he could get community service (help in charity shops, that sort of thing) but then the US manages to extradite him using an agreement they refuse to ratify and with threats of the electric chair being thrown at him (and not in a Balmer sort of way) before the trial even begins. Ye Gods.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    1. Re:Interesting comparison by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here we can look at that and say, "Psssh, effing New Jersey" but in a lot of places in Europe they absolutely believe that we would fry this joker for a non-violent crime. The BBC is a fairly well respected news source and when they publish things like:

      Speaking later, solicitor Jeffrey Anderson said alleged threats by US authorities, including one from New Jersey prosecutors that Mr McKinnon "would fry", would be among issues raised.

      ....I think you can see where that opinion of the USA comes from.

    2. Re:Interesting comparison by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      But the person making the threat IS somebody connected to the case... somebody with legal, govt granted power. The comment alone is enough to get him removed from the case for conflict of interest.. it's entirely possible their govt could consider an outright threat to be indication that the trial will not be fair and the punishment considered "cruel and unusual" under their country's laws.

      The US govt doesn't stand up for it's citizens.. how'd you like a cop to threaten to "f'n kill you" witha drawn weapon when you were stopped for a simple speeding ticket. It's the same thing here, Only the UK takes it's people seriously. There's no law on any books that would allow a prosecutor to even ask a court for a person to "fry" for computer tresspass.. being as this was an offical agent, under press conference, JEST is not an option.. he was threatening illegal execution of the prisoner. period. American cops and prosecutors are in need of a harsh lesson in professionalism. They have the law on their side, there's no need for idle, illegal threats.

    3. Re:Interesting comparison by kocsonya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > but in a lot of places in Europe they absolutely believe that we would fry this joker for a non-violent crime

      Why, you kidnapped and tortured that Canadian guy for no apparent reason, kidnapped (and probably tortured) quite a handful of other guys in Europe, some of whom did not do anything unlawful, you run a "the law does not apply here" concentration camp on soil that you rent from your arch enemy communist country from which you can not otherwise import even cigars, bombed the crap out of and pretty well destroyed a country which did nothing to draw your mighty anger, you fight a war in an other against a regimee that you put into power, funded and armed to the teeth, declared that your soldiers can not be held responsible for whatever warcrimes they commit and last but not least, as a matter of fact, you (alone in the developed world) do actually off quite a lot of your people.

      So, there's some reason behind that sentiment in Europe; even if it is stereotyping, like many stereotypes, it is not entirely baseless.

  3. Re:yet by Raistlin77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Leave it to Zonk to ADD errors whilst editing.

  4. Re:WTF?? by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 4, Interesting
    You've a different read to the impression I've seen. He's someone who admits he has no high opinion of himself, some might say he has an overactive imagination, and his kiddie skillz were enough to get him in trouble because US military thought using Windows was a good idea (this is his legal defence line, anyway).

    As you could tell if you read the article.

  5. Wow... by Jaysyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, I can see why Brits would be upset. This would set a very nasty precedent. I didn't realize that even after all the lies about Iraq, etc, that we are *still* far enough into the U.K. that they'd bend over like this.

    --
    There is a war going on for your mind.
  6. Am I the only one... by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... who thinks this is actually a disgrace?

    AFAIK, Gary McKinnon is a british citizen (check Wikipedia for this). Why does the UK allow one of its citizen to be extradited to the USA? Why is he not judged and sentenced in the UK?

    Does anyone think, for just a millisecond, that the USA would do the same? Extradite one of its own citizen to be tried in the UK?

    Where on earth is the outrage? How come a sovereign country, like the UK, is extraditing one of its own citizen -- regardless of his crimes -- to another country to be tried there? This is ridiculous! Can anyone answer that question?

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      from the article you cite:

      "A FORMER US marine who sparked an international manhunt after allegedly abducting a 12-year-old British girl he had befriended on the internet was extradited to the UK from Germany yesterday."

      he was arrested in germany, not extradited from the US.

      stupid, indeed.

  7. to extradite or not to extradite by N3wsByt3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    European countries (well, their governments) are ubelievably hypocritic in this regard. I think it's just because, time after time, they buckle to USA pressure. Not all that long ago, a EU-citizen was extradited to the USA, facing a possible deathsentence (acording to US laws). It is clearly stated, in many national laws, but also as an European law, that NO EU-citizens may be extradited to countruies which implement the death-sentence. Luckily, there are only a hanful of barbaric states left who do such a thing, such as china and N.-Korea, etc. Even fewer countries which claim to be democratic still practise it, such as...the USA.

    But, what did they do? The govenments made a deal, where the USA 'promised' they wouldn't actually deal out the capital punishment to that citizen. That was *before* any sentence on guilt or lack thereof was made. Actually, this should anger americans as much, because this means their government arbitrarily decided to NOT treat a person who (alledgely) commited crimes on USA soil according to their own law, and that that EU-person got an illegal advantage which no ordinary US citizen gets.

    For me, however, the anger comes at the fact they *did* extradite him to the USA, clearly in violation of the rules and laws of that country and the EU. If the USA wanted him so badly, they could abolish the death penalty. speaking of which, if I'm not mistaken, some more progressive non-bible-belt states in the USA already have forbidden such practises, as any civilised society would do. Or does it ultimately remain a federal decision? Maybe some US slashdotters can fill me in on this.

    --
    --- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
    1. Re:to extradite or not to extradite by Zenaku · · Score: 5, Informative

      That would depend on which sovereign is trying the defendant. Some states have the death penalty, others have outlawed it. The FEDERAL government does have the death penalty.

      Since in this case the crime is against the Department of Defense, it would be a federal crime, under federal jurisdiction.

      However, hacking is not a capital offense under any jurisdiction, so far as I am aware. When the prosecutor said he would fry, it was a figure of speech.

      That being said, if I were the U.K. I sure as hell wouldn't extradite one of my citizens to a country where due process and habeas corpus have recently been ruled to not apply to "enemy combatants," a designation which is applied to non-citizens solely at the discretion of the executive branch. Under our constitutional system of justice, he would not have anything to worry about as far as the death penalty -- but since he hacked the military, and the government could ignore the constitutional system of justice by uttering the magic words. . .

      Well, that probably wouldn't happen. Probably.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    2. Re:to extradite or not to extradite by Zenaku · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. If you ask me, the defense department was made to look foolish (having machines so insecure that some stoned UFO nut was able to waltz right into them), and now the feds need to save face by portraying him as a scary and highly dangerous hacker, who has used his mad skillz to compromise our national security.

      Asshats, one and all.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    3. Re:to extradite or not to extradite by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He's from New Jersey...I don't know of a better way to explain it. Anyone who works as a prosecutor in that state is bound to be such a hardass, just to deal with the locals...You don't get it unless you live there, but there are a lot of verbally aggressive people in that state, and that sort of language isn't viewed the same way it is in the rest of the US, or the world for that matter.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
  8. The moral of the story... by DragonPup · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't try to gain unauthorized access into the freaking Department of Defense network, and then basically admit to it.

    For a smart guy, he's rather stupid.

    --
    "Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
  9. End justifying the means? by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From TFA
    ...has always maintained that he was motivated by curiosity and that he only managed to get into the networks because of lax security.

    So by that rationale, if I can kick in your front door to get into your house, is it your fault for not having a better door lock/frame?

    1. Re:End justifying the means? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Funny

      So by that rationale, if I can kick in your front door to get into your house, is it your fault for not having a better door lock/frame?

      I still don't get it . . . Maybe you could use a car analogy.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  10. No Surprise Really by segedunum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is no surprise really. Sadly, Britain has become another state of the US and a bitch that bends over at every available opportunity when the US government asks, and people like Blair and John Reid have been happy to go along with it. The favours are not returned, needless to say (witness the current Iran hostage problem).

    The CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) have even stated that there is insufficient evidence to go ahead with a prosecution, but as soon as the US steps in (using some very murky agreement related to terrorism the last I looked) the seas (or should I say, the legs) part. If there are grounds for deportation then fine, but sadly, if this guy had sneezed he would have been on the next plane if the US asked.

    As a British person I find all this humiliating to see, and quite frankly, treacherous now. I'm not having a go at the US or Americans here. This is a British problem, and one related to standing up for itself, self respect and knowing what its own self interests are. The US are merely looking out for theirs.

  11. Re:WTF?? by symes · · Score: 4, Informative
    Indeed, he seems pretty down to Earth in this interview. Well, I say down to Earth...

    "What was the most exciting thing you saw?" I ask.

    "I found a list of officers' names," he claims, "under the heading 'Non-Terrestrial Officers'."

    "Non-Terrestrial Officers?" I say.

    "Yeah, I looked it up," says Gary, "and it's nowhere. It doesn't mean little green men. What I think it means is not earth-based. I found a list of 'fleet-to-fleet transfers', and a list of ship names. I looked them up. They weren't US navy ships. What I saw made me believe they have some kind of spaceship, off-planet."

    "The Americans have a secret spaceship?" I ask.

    "That's what this trickle of evidence has led me to believe."

    "Some kind of other Mir that nobody knows about?"

    "I guess so," says Gary.

    "What were the ship names?"

    "I can't remember," says Gary. "I was smoking a lot of dope at the time. Not good for the intellect."

  12. Curiosity Killed Gary by C4st13v4n14 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've been watching this story for some time now. As an American living in Europe, and as a forensic psychiatrist, I really feel sorry for this guy. I know how they treat prisoners at home as I've worked with them, and I know how they treat them over here as I work with them now. If he gets shipped over to the States, he will have his human rights violated. Being a high-profile prisoner, they'll never let him serve any part of his prison term in the UK and his family will never be able to visit him. Basically, he'll never see the light of day again. With all the threats made against Gary, especially what this idiot in New Jersey said, and with all of his supporters, I don't see why he hasn't won his fight against extradition. It must have to do with politics. America has to be putting significant pressure on the British government to make this one go their way. We, unfortunately, would never see these reasons reported in any newspaper thus we can only speculate.

    He's never said that he didn't do what he's accused of, and he's always said that he only did it out of curiosity. He didn't even steal anything, let alone national secrets. It's really a shame that he didn't pick a target somewhere within Europe to satisfy his curiosity. They would have been a little more lenient and his subsequent time in prison could actually be bearable. After all, why should he go to prison? He's already very sorry that he did such a thing, he's beginning to fall ill because of the immense stress and feeling of impending doom of getting extradited, and prison is not only about punishment, it's about rehabilitation.

    1. Re:Curiosity Killed Gary by xtracto · · Score: 3, Informative

      If he gets shipped over to the States, he will have his human rights violated.

      Somehow, I believe something *more* than his human rights will be violated.

      What I dont understand is why the UK does not understand that he commited whatever crimes he commited in the UK. As you said, there is surely some kind of political agenda before this... poor sucker. Of course I do not condone what he did, he indeed commited a crime but he should be judged and charged *where* he commited it, in the UK and not in whatever country wants who wants to charge it.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    2. Re:Curiosity Killed Gary by ElephanTS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, well said. I've followed Gary's case closely (unlike most people that seem to be commenting here) and know what he actually did. Which was, as we know, very little and nothing to damage national security. He was chasing the 'free energy' dream and secrets of Area51 as some kind of personal project. He was naive (I would have used a chain of proxies ahem) but the security was minimal and invited attacks. He claims he saw other people up to the same thing while he was there but for some reason he seems to carry the can for everything.

      He doesn't appear that bright - just a very standard computer guy with some Windows admin skills. The punishment here will not fit the crime and a man's life will be wasted because of this. It's insane and I feel very sorry for him. If they cared so much about the contents of these computers why did they not secure them?

      And, as you say quite rightly, punishment should not be purely vindictive there must be an element of rehabilitation as well.

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
  13. Security consultant by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wikipedia says The US estimates claim the costs of tracking and correcting the problems he allegedly caused were around 700,000 USD. It then goes on to say that he hacked the government websites with a Perl script, and found default passwords on their "secure" network. Good think McKinnon found them before China did. (Or did he?)

    Maybe they should treat him as a $700K security consultant.

    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

  14. Re:6 years ago i would of agreed with the court by bmajik · · Score: 3, Funny

    And Texas was only reluctantly admitted to the US, something that both Texans and the rest of the US are equally proud of :)

    --
    My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  15. Let's Pretend This Is Your House by queenb**ch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about this scenario? I show up at your house while you're at work. You're locks aren't strong enough to keep me out. Your windows aren't bullet proof. Your walls aren't made out of titanium. Now, since I'm well equipped for this sort of thing - complete set of lock picks, bricks for smashing widows, and a saws all to just cut holes in the walls, I'll just break into your house, go poking around "because I'm curious" and "your security is lax". Now imagine for a moment you come home to find the mess that I've made of your domicile? Are you going to be happy? What about the time and expense it takes to clean all that up and repair your house?

    I think his punishment should be working until he's paid back every penny of the expense of cleaning up his little intrusions. If it were in my hands, he'd be making restitution and not serving time in the traditional sense.

    2 cents,

    QueenB

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/
  16. Re:6 years ago i would of agreed with the court by number6x · · Score: 3, Funny

    The US and Mexico fought over who would get Texas.

    Santa Ana won the battle of the Alamo and the US got Texas.

  17. let the book be thrown by spyrochaete · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Okay, you just bought yourself a 317: Pointing out police stupidity." - Chief Wiggum

    America will throw the book at McKinnon because they are embarassed of their lax security practises on such high profile systems. They will make an example of McKinnon because he used little more than a brute force 2-line PERL script to bombard many desktops with obvious passwords (e.g., "password" or "" [blank]).

    America is even more ashamed of this security breach because the many same systems were infiltrated by Mathew Bevan using the exact same tactics over 10 years prior. That's right - these government and military and NASA computers have had no password policy after 10 years and 2 break-ins. Adding the number 1 to the end of these passwords would have stopped McKinnon dead in his tracks.

    McKinnon is not a sophisticated programmer or cracker. He simply challenged seemingly high security systems with very low-tech kludgey scripts to see what would happen. He got lucky, then he got audacious, and then he got careless.

    Get ready for another Mitnick-scale high profile court case on this one. McKinnon won't fry, but he won't see the sun for quite some time.

  18. Re:6 years ago i would of agreed with the court by Oxygen99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    You insensitive clod! I'm writing this from the local prison and let me tell you what a hellhole English prisons have become. My lattes have been growing ever more tepid, the prisoner ration of fifteen cuban maidens a month has been reduced to twelve and the prison bar doesn't even serve the Chateau Laffite '73 any more. Not since those E Wing Philistines had their way. Barbarians, to a man. I mean I've spoken to the maitre'd about it but what will he do? I'll tell you what he'll do. He'll just shrug in that gallic way Pierre has and reply, "Oh, monseiur prisoner #297848, don't be so silly, non? The '71 is a far superior wine in almost every way. Can't you feel the French sun in every sip?"

    And you call this cushy. I'm supposed to live with fraudsters, ne-er-do-wells and malefactors who consider the easy charms of a '71 preferable to the more challenging '73?

    You, sir, are worse than Hitler.

    --
    I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
  19. Re:6 years ago i would of agreed with the court by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Gimme a break. Do you really think that any court in America would give this punk the death penalty?"

    I don't think it does matter. The thing is that USA applies death penalty. That should be enough for any civilized country not to maintain an extradition treaty with such a country.

    "And even in states that have capital punishment, in the vast majority of murder cases, prosecutors rarely go after the death penalty."

    Just 1057 times in 2006 only.