NASA Hacker Wins Right to Extradition Hearing

E5Rebel writes "Gary McKinnon, the UK-based ex-systems administrator accused of conducting the biggest military hack of all time, has won the right to have his case against extradition to the U.S. heard by the House of Lords."

Comments

Big hair b-rock bands

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even sure if the House of Lords will even be interested in hearing the case.

Re:Big hair b-rock bands

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow you apparently don't know what either of the House of Lords in this thread is, do you?

Re:aliens are for real

[dclozier]

Is that you Gary? :D

Plea bargain

[l33t.g33k]

From TFA:

They accused US investigators of trying to coerce McKinnon into accepting a secret plea bargain by threatening him with a long prison sentence if he did not collaborate.

Hmmm... that's a strange thing to criticize... this is a pretty standard practice in US criminal law - cooperate, forfeit your right to a trial, and you get off easy.

Re:Plea bargain

[_KiTA_]

Hmmm... that's a strange thing to criticize... this is a pretty standard practice in US criminal law - cooperate, forfeit your right to a trial, and you get off easy.

Except, is that legal in the UK?

I mean, yea, yeah, he's being tried in the US. But don't his rights as a UK citizen apply as well?

Re:Plea bargain

[QuantumG]

I once had a police offer tell me that, in the UK and Australia, such things are illegal. This is actually just holding the police to the same standard as the rest of society. In the US there's laws against "making deals" but they don't apply to the police (or the government's prosecutors). For example:

519.030 Compounding a crime.
(1) A person is guilty of compounding a crime when:
(a) He solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit upon an agreement or
understanding that he will refrain from initiating a prosecution for a crime; or
(b) He confers, offers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon another person upon
agreement or understanding that such other person will refrain from initiating
a prosecution for a crime.
(2) In any prosecution under this section, it is a defense that the benefit did not exceed
an amount which the defendant reasonably believed to be due as restitution or
indemnification for harm caused by the offense.
(3) Compounding a crime is a Class A misdemeanor. So yeah, if I shoot you and say "I'll give you $10k to keep quiet" then I'm compounding a crime. If you accept then we're both compounding a crime.

Most the time the deals made in the US are of the "plead guilty" variety, not the "talk and we won't prosecute" variety, so this particular law wouldn't apply, but you get the idea.

Re:Plea bargain

[techno-vampire]

Compounding a crime has nothing to do with plea bargaining. In almost all cases, the defendant could be considered to have committed several different crimes, with different penalties. A plea bargain is just a negotiation between the two sides as to which crime the defendant will plead guilty to and how great a penalty will be imposed.

Immunity from prosecution in return for testimony comes closer, of course, but in that case, the benefit is to the public, not to the prosecutor personally.

Re:Plea bargain

[the_womble]

Hmmm... that's a strange thing to criticize... this is a pretty standard practice in US criminal law - cooperate, forfeit your right to a trial, and you get off easy.

Except that the rest of the world regards it as a loathsome practice designed to get someone in jail for something, even when there is a lack of conclusive evidence against them. It is getting criminal convictions through coercion rather than evidence.

Re:Plea bargain

[gardyloo]

if I shoot you and say "I'll give you $10k to keep quiet" then I'm compounding a crime. Couldn't you just save $10k and possible prosecution by shooting me again?

Re:Plea bargain

[sumdumass]

The 10K isn't the good guys. It is from the bad guys wanting you to keep quiet about the crime you know about.

Basically, I says that If you commit a crime to cover a crime up, which is what Paying you to keep your mouth shut about me being around those two dead bodies would be. But now you are part of a compound crime and could suffer more of a penalty then if you just took a bribe.

Re:Plea bargain

[Anonymous Coward]

If a US investigator has used some kind of investigation practices on a UK citizen residing in UK, and those practices are illegal in UK, then US should extradite the investigators to UK for a fair trial. Of course this is not the case, because human rights violations do not deserve such vigorous corrective action as economic misdemeanors do.

Re:Plea bargain

[Cathbard]

Just because you are used to plea bargaining that doesn't make it right. It's a disgraceful way to conduct a court and is one thing that is held up by anti-american detractors as an example of why the rest of the world should resist going down the same path. The David Hicks fiasco showed this in stark relief. It might seem normal to US citizens to behave this way but that doesn't make it acceptable to others.

Re:Plea bargain

[iminplaya]

If you have to pay a guy $10K to keep quiet after you shoot him, then you should learn more about "gun control".

Re:Plea bargain

[QuantumG]

Or you could drive him to the hospital.

(Australian joke)

Re:Plea bargain

[CmdrGravy]

No it most definitley isn't. His rights as a UK citizen should ensure that he's not sent anywhere where he's subject to abuses like that.

Considering that McKinnon actually committed his crimes in the UK I don't see any reason why he should be extradited to America, charge him and try him here by all means but tell the Yanks to butt out.

Re:Plea Bargain

[tjl2015]

Better yet, if every case had to be brought to trial, it would force prosecutors and the law to focus on important cases.

I think it is reasonable that one of the factors contributing to the burgeoning prison population is the plea deal system. Currently, scores of people are convicted without the need for public input. Thus, out of sight, out of mind.

For example, consider the imprisoning of people for the possession of small amounts of marijuana. Many people don't oppose laws that allow this because it does not affect them personally. Such things usually happen far outside the range of the average middle-class, middle-to-late-age white suburbanite, the same group of people that have the greatest influence on the law.

It's one thing to vote for a politician who promises to be tough on drugs; it's another thing entirely to sit on a jury box and condemn a man to jail for a petty offense.

This is how the system was supposed to work. People were supposed to be convicted by a jury of their peers. If the jury thought the case unjust, they either could use jury nullification or at least have an incentive to get the unjust laws repealed. With plea bargaining, the prosecutor will say, "You can get ten years for this offense, by pleading guilty you'll only get two." The defendant, knowing the chance of conviction is high, will take what he can get. The unjust law remains on the books, and injustice continues in relative obscurity.

Re:Plea Bargain

[Dunbal]

Such things usually happen ... the same group of people that have the greatest influence on the law.

      I'm sorry, what do middle aged white suburbanites have to do with corporations?

Re:Plea bargain

[TapeCutter]

I belive you have misread the GP, I think you missed the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" parabole[sic?]. From an Aussie/UK point of view US prosecuters seem more interested in plea bargains than they say, a sound case against the person who is on trial. I understand deals are made to save money and court time in all three countries but that should not be the first concern of the DPP. Once "justice" has been seen to be done then the DPP can start haggling about the price tag.

It should be difficult to put a citizen in jail and impossible to seek state sponsored revenge through executions, but to an outsider (like me) it sometimes appears to be a dutch auction where they start at "life or death" and work down until the guy in the orange suit cracks. Not trying to be offensive here but do prosecuters in the US get a "job rating" based on some measure of "success"?

Re:Plea bargain

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, is that legal in the UK?

No. It does happen in the UK but it certainly is not legal.

Re:Plea bargain

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh!

Re:Plea bargain

[stiggle]

In England and Wales (Scotland has a separate legal system) the Courts "take into consideration" such things as pleading guilty and admitting to additional offenses they have committed.

Its definately not illegal.

Re:Plea bargain

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on. My knowledge of the UK system is more or less what I've seen on "Rumpole of the Bailey", but even that is enough to show that it is not all that different from the US.

The main difference in this matter is that a US judge will only rarely give a greater penalty than what the prosecution has asked for, whereas a UK magistrate might not limit himself or herself in this way. So in both cases, negotiations between defense and prosecution often take place. In the US these negotiations are somewhat more influential to the defendant's plea, because the prosecution has more to offer. (The other important difference is that in the UK they like to play dress-up with those nappy wigs.)

Re:Plea bargain

[Anonymous Coward]

Britain is no different. Here in the UK you now get a huge tariff discount for a guilty plea. But rather than calling it the coercion it is, we pretend it is a bonus for remorsefulness.

We have basically the same system but we dress it up in hypocrisy.

Re:Plea bargain

[Ogive17]

Plea bargains typically result in less punishment. It's almost a reward for not putting the courts/lawyers/jury through a trial.... When people know they are guilty and there is evidence to prove it, it's usually their best option.

Sure there are probably cases when a defendant is "forced" into a plea agreement for something they were innocent of, but that would be a very small minority (no system is perfect).

But any competant lawyer should have enough sense to not let their client get thrown under the bus. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the prosecution's first step being "confess and we'll give you a lighter sentence... otherwise we'll go to trial and you may end up with a much harsher punishment."

Re:Plea bargain

[db32]

I have a huge problem with it and I have mentioned it previously. I simply don't understand this stupid wimpering about "its all about getting innocent people in jail". You are exactly right, any lawyer regardless of moral quality, who throws his innocent clients under busses like that will very quickly find himself without clients. It is a stupid complaint against the plea bargin system, HOWEVER, I still think it is an entirely unjust and corrupt system. FAR FAR FAR more often than an innocent person having to take a deal, is the fact that disgusting slime pieces of shit get off the hook with barely a slap on the wrist. Sex offenders probably being the worst. Molestation and such happens FAR more than most people would like to admit or are aware of, and most of the offenders get to walk away with little more than a "ya shouldnta done that" only to wind up back in court months or years later (if they even get caught) for doing it again. Plea bargins disgust me, its not about innocent people going to jail which is the rare case of this, it is the guilty people walking free that is unfortunately all too common.

Re:Plea bargain

[Anonymous Coward]

"do prosecuters in the US get a "job rating" based on some measure of "success"?

Yes. ADAs and DAs are considered successful and more likely to get pay raises/judgeships/political appointments with a high conviction rate for high profile crimes.

Re:Plea bargain

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Because they've already done the crime and its magnitude is a fixed value. The sentence meted out should be mostly based on the magnitude of the crime, and only slightly modified for wether someone pleaded guilty or not (this has the side effect of not keeping actually innocent people inside for twice as long because they continue to protest their innocence). Most civilised justice systems are based on the principle of due process. By giving someone a reward for letting you skip the due process, you're implying that somehow the due process is an inconvenient chore that we should try to do away with.

Re:Plea bargain

[techno-vampire]

Oh,I knew what the poster was on about, I just wanted to point out that he was wrong about compounding a felony.

As far as plea bargaining goes, you're right in part; it does work like a dutch auction. How else would you expect it to go?

Remember, though, that unless the defendant is stupid enough to do without counsel, there's a lawyer present during negotiations to protect his interests and get him the best deal possible. It's not always a case of somebody cracking, often the lawyer doesn't expect to win in court and ends up persuading his client that this is the best deal he's ever going to get.

Re:Plea bargain

[KillerCow]

From TFA:

They accused US investigators of trying to coerce McKinnon into accepting a secret plea bargain by threatening him with a long prison sentence if he did not collaborate.

Hmmm... that's a strange thing to criticize... this is a pretty standard practice in US criminal law - cooperate, forfeit your right to a trial, and you get off easy.

Yep, ask Kevin Mitnick. Four and a half year in prison with no trial and no bail hearing. He only got out because he plead guilty. Welcome to the land of the free.

Re:Plea bargain

[tehcyder]

In England and Wales (Scotland has a separate legal system) the Courts "take into consideration" such things as pleading guilty and admitting to additional offenses they have committed.

Its definately not illegal.

Yes, but the cops/Crown prosecution service aren't allowed to say to a suspect "admit you're guilty and we'll get you a shorter sentence guaranteed." All they can do is point out that most judges will reduce your sentence if you are as co-operative as possible, especially if you plead guilty and avoid the expense of a trial.

Re:Plea bargain

[SIIHP]

"The sentence meted out should be mostly based on the magnitude of the crime, and only slightly modified for wether someone pleaded guilty or not"

This is silly. It is the judge that sentences, so it IS based on the magnitude of the crime, so your objection is specious. The only thing that differs is what the prosecutor asks for, and this can vary for any number of reasons, including your willingness to cooperate and admit guilt.

"By giving someone a reward for letting you skip the due process, you're implying that somehow the due process is an inconvenient chore that we should try to do away with."

You're not rewarding them for "skipping due process" as a plea bargain IS due process. It's just one form of due process, that you are in no way required to accept.

None of your objections have any merit.

Re:Plea bargain

[Anonymous Cowpat]

in civilised societies the judge decides the punishment without reference to the wishes of the prosecutor. Those are the same societies where plea bargains don't exist. By pleading guilty in exchange for the prosecutor seeking a lighter punishment:

1. Justice is not seen to be done
2. Innocent defendants can be bullied into pleading guilty without seeing the case against them, simply on the promise that it's formidable
3. No-one else has the opportunity to scrutinise if the defendant is being bullied into admitting guilt when they're not guilty
4. Different people can get wildly different sentences for the same crime, dependant on what the prosecutor offers them, rather than the judge deciding, and being able to appeal it based upon it being wildly different from what other people got for the same crime.

Re:Plea bargain

[RockDoctor]

They accused US investigators of trying to coerce McKinnon into accepting a secret plea bargain by threatening him with a long prison sentence if he did not collaborate.

Hmmm... that's a strange thing to criticize... this is a pretty standard practice in US criminal law - cooperate, forfeit your right to a trial, and you get off easy.

This may come as a surprise to you, but the relevant jurisdiction practices in an extradition case are those of the country being asked to send someone away, not those of the country doing the asking. Or, to put it another way, the US has to demonstrate it's case according to English standards (where plea bargaining is almost unknown, beyond a routine 20~30% discount for pleading guilty before trial ; in Scotland you'd probably not even get that).

Look down the other end of the telescope : someone in Tadjikistan thinks that Dubya Bush has offended against their laws about defaming their, and wants to extradite Bush according to their rules of jurisprudence. In cases involving presidential insults, accepted practice is to boil the accused, slowly, until he confesses.

Hey, maybe this isn't such a bad idea after all.

Re:Plea bargain

[RockDoctor]

Doh!

someone in Tadjikistan thinks that Dubya Bush has offended against their laws about defaming their [insert] president

, and wants to extradite Bush Concentrating on the HTML and forgetting the content! Who do I think I am? Microsoft Word producing "Office-HTML"?

Obligatory

[CautionaryX]

Red rover, red rover send Gary McKinnon on over! Ah, its so nice to see our two governments playing along so nicely, don't you think?

no extraditions

[laura_glow]

He should go to Rio de Janeiro, just in case. Like Ronald Biggs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Biggs

Re:aliens are for real

[Spy der Mann]

Your comment just reminded me of a comic strip.

Secretary (undercover alien working for the CIA): Would either of you care for more coffee?
Agent Wolf: You didn't fertilize it with alien mind control spores, did you?
Secretary: For the last time, agent Wolf, I AM NOT AN ALIEN.
Agent Wolf: YOU HAVE A TAIL!!!
Their boss: Agent Wolf, that's enough! Or do you want to be sent to sensitivity training again?
Agent Wolf: No, sir.

question....

[lordvalrole]

How do they figure £475,000 worth of damage? I don't know much about the case (or really anything of it) but did he actually do harmful damage to the crap he hacked into...or is it potential damage? I can never trust half the money numbers people throw around these days.

Re:question....

[Eravnrekaree]

If all he did was look, I think 475,000 is a really excessive. I beleive i did read that is pretty much he did, he wasnt interested in creating havoc but just having a look. It doesn't make it right and its not something i condone, but some of these penalties go beyond what seems reasonable. If he actually didnt cause any actual damage to the systems, perhaps community service might be more porportional to the crime it would seem to me.

Re:question....

[nacturation]

Telling them "I *might* have hacked your servers", even if you're computer illiterate, causes them to launch an investigation and tear apart their entire network looking for evidence which probably costs $200K in wages, vendor fees, consultants, etc. The remainder comes into play if they actually find something and have to take action.

Re:question....

[ScentCone]

But - if those systems were your responsibility - what would it take you to satisfy the people you report to that there was no damage? How many hours of review, extra archiving, and other admin chores would you face in the wake of known break in? Do you just take the cracker's word for it that he didn't alter anything, or do you have to spend lots of time checking that out, and probably get some third parties involved in auditing that look-see, just to be sure? None of that is free, and most of it's very expensive.

Re:question....

[westlake]

How do they figure £475,000 worth of damage?

a loon who was still employable as a system administrator hacks into a military network. inevitably triggering a very expensive audit and perhaps a rebuild of the net.

Re:question....

[_Sprocket_]

Also tack on the cost of equipment seized as evidence. There's been some changes in how things are handled recently. But back around the time period of this case, it wasn't uncommon for the FBI to lay claim to entire systems. If the budget-strapped lab was lucky, they got back everything but the hard drives. In at least one case I know of, a couple Unix workstations went away with the promise that they'd be back at the lab within the year. Anything that goes in to this prosecution-driven black hole needs to be replaced. That only adds to the cost of the incident.

Re:question....

[pacov]

My guess is you DO NOT condone his actions (2nd time you mentioned this to keep the CIA, Interpol, and any other "BlackOp" related org off your butt), but don't mind skirting the fact that what he looked at (by TFA) was only valued at £475,000 (guessing U.S. $750,000). You would think a walk through the NASA network (by the article NASA is now a "military" complex...last I heard it was based on a civilian charter), would warrant something closer to national park vandalization penalties.

NASA is not a military complex (by the books anyhow), Gary McKinnon IS a British citizen and should be governed by U.K. laws, and if Gary is sent over to us via Club Gitmo as our elected officials apparently want, I want to see ALL Chinese citizens that (attempt to) break into our (U.S.) institutions sent over, also. --- We can do this non-U.S. Citizens can't we...'Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier' via the F.B.I. should do it...or is it only for U.S. citizens?

What?! China isn't our bitch and will send over it's citizens on our whim?

What the hell, hopefully we'll change our generalized ideals the next election.

Peace

Re:question....

[Agelmar]

Oh how I wish you were right in your estimate. £475,000 is about US$964,867. (Yes, it's now worse than 2:1).

Re:question....

[Anonymous Coward]

inevitably triggering a very expensive audit and perhaps a rebuild of the net." This was then needed anyway. Or do you imply that security is not realy needed?

Re:question....

[sumdumass]

Who the hell is ripping you off? You both are high with actual numbers. It is about $649,443 verified by two seperate currency converters.

I hope you aren't one of those people who have seen the stocks, the unemployment and everything else we gage the economy by defy the entire it's crap argument and produce better numbers then the Clinton administration so you look at the exchange rate to justify how bad the US is doing are you? I mean, Because it sounds like someone is lying to you again.

Re:question....

[sumdumass]

NASA has always been both public and military. They did this to both funnel money into NASA with military projects and to aid military research. It is quite possible that you could see military stuff in the NASA computer system and vice versa.

Now, as for it being close to vandalizing a government park or building. You have to remember that along with the fine, you will have to pay restitution for the damages you caused. This makes that number in line with what your thinking.

Now, I would think that if he was a UK citizen and broke a UK law in the UK he would be subject to the UK laws. But seeing how he changed the place he broke into and it turned out to be american, I don't see why it isn't the same as a tourist committing a crime while visiting america. You might ass that he went back to england before getting caught but it is the same.

Re:question....

[badfish99]

No, he's right; it's more than 2 dollars to the pound now. Perhaps you confused pounds with euros?

Re:question....

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello there! Just to point out that a £ is not a ! Oops... Conversion rate from to $ is ~1.36. Conversion rate from £ to $ is ~2.05.

Re:question....

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow TWO you say? It helps if you're using the proper currency. . . .

Re:question....

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like slashdot can't handle the euro symbol...
Hello there! Just to point out that a £ is not a EUR! Oops... Conversion rate from EUR to $ is ~1.36. Conversion rate from £ to $ is ~2.05.

Re:question....

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that if you had actually RTFA you would have seen that he also hacked the pentagon.

Re:question....

[Sobrique]

Ahh, but if you're J Random Sysadmin, then you'll find it _far_ easier to blame the hacker, than it would be to get someone to listen to your professional opinion that you security 'needs work'.

And less prone to actually losing your budget. I have direct experience of a previous employer, where we were requesting a network kit upgrade for 5 years, and each year, it got dropped from the budget, because 'well, it seems OK'. We spent that long rebooting switches, and almost daily 'firefighting' to keep the rising tide away from our sandcastle.

And then one day, it all fell over, in a critical fashion. The usual recriminations vanished very quickly when we pulled out the 5 years of budget paperwork.

So, lets just imagine, that the SA there _knows_ security needs work. But as with all such things, it takes time and a serious effort to get a 'proper' secure system setup. I mean, you can't just turn off telnet on a few servers, and hope that's ok :).

And they get hacked. And it goes public. As said sysadmin, wouldn't you then take the opportuntity to implement that idea you've had for ages, to tighten up security, and make everything a little bit better, only this time you have managers practically forcing you to do what you wanted to do all along. Better yet, you can spend loads of moolah with impuginty, and pull it out of the 'emergency response' budget, and proceed to wave the 'ooh hacker' flag when anyone questions you over it.

Re:question....

[ConfusedVorlon]

remembering roughly from an interview Gary gave a while ago...

There is a threshold of damage that needs to be done for the crome to be serious enough to warrant extradition. This is something like $3000.

When the prosecution realised this, they stated that $3000 of damage had been done to each machine and multiplied up to get the number.

Re:question....

[Anonymous Coward]

£475,000 in $. Your username is an accurate description. Fuck, I can't believe you're criticising someone else's statistics. Please accept that you are stupider than the average person (as also shown by your lack of ability to use punctuation and grammar) and decline from commenting on political matters.

Re:question....

[Pentagram]

But - if those systems were your responsibility - what would it take you to satisfy the people you report to that there was no damage? How many hours of review, extra archiving, and other admin chores would you face in the wake of known break in?

The security seems to have been so bad they have no idea how many other people have been poking around in their systems. It sounds like a security review was needed anyway.

OK, the victim of a crime shouldn't be considered to be responsible for a crime just for not taking appropriate precautions, but on the other hand people shouldn't be convicted of crimes they *may* have committed. Just because he *might* have damaged their systems (to the best of our knowledge he hasn't), should he be responsible for the full cost of the security checks? I don't think so.

Re:question....

[nicolastheadept]

The currency of the United kingdom is pounds sterling (£) not Euros (). £1 is over $2

Re:question....

[FritzTheCat1030]

But - if those systems were your responsibility - what would it take you to satisfy the people you report to that there was no damage? How many hours of review, extra archiving, and other admin chores would you face in the wake of known break in? Do you just take the cracker's word for it that he didn't alter anything, or do you have to spend lots of time checking that out, and probably get some third parties involved in auditing that look-see, just to be sure? None of that is free, and most of it's very expensive.

If I'm remembering this case correctly, the box he supposedly "hacked" into was left connected to the internet with NO security login whatsoever. If I'm in charge of a system containing classified information and discover such a blunder, I'm going to follow EXACTLY the same procedures regardless of whether I know of a "break in" or not, because I'm going to assume everything on the box is compromised until I can prove otherwise. They're really quite lucky that this guy, apparantly, was only snooping around and not looking to do anything malicious. The next guy who found it might not have been so benign.

Re:question....

[Perl-Pusher]

He didn't just look, he placed back doors in that allowed him in whenever he wanted. That took man hours to check every single system. Whenever your hacked, you don't just look at one machine. You have to check every single machine on your network! How many machines do you think NASA owns! Plus, time to clean up the root kits he used. So I'm sure the price was high. Also he was a systems administrator, someone who is a position of trust. Personally, I'd give him the option of Saudi Arabian or Iranian law if he thinks the US system is so unfair. In Saudi Arabia he would be typing with a hook. The British system also has a form of plea bargaining so whats his beef? You have to agree to a plea, your not beaten up. You only agree to a plea only if you think your going to lose, usually because of overwhelming evidence.

Re:question....

[Anonymous Coward]

So, a bank with thousands of safety deposit boxes forgets to lock the back door one night. The next morning, as a janitor shows up for work, they notice that a suspicious-looking fellow leaving the alley behind the bank. The janitor investigates and notices the back door is unlocked, and that the door to the vault inside the bank is open just a crack.

The bank has to perform an exhaustive (and expensive) audit of all the safety deposit boxes to determine if anything was stolen.

They send the bill to the guy hanging out in the alley?

Re:question....

[ScentCone]

NASA is not a military complex (by the books anyhow), Gary McKinnon IS a British citizen and should be governed by U.K. laws, and if Gary is sent over to us via Club Gitmo as our elected officials apparently want, I want to see ALL Chinese citizens that (attempt to) break into our (U.S.) institutions sent over, also

Wow, you're just spectacularly uninformed, or trolling like mad. Either way, please get smarter and also stop lying.

Gitmo? This guy is NOT a non-uniformed combatant attacking US troops or supporting those that do. He's a simple criminal subject to extradition treaties that have been in place and well understood for many, many years. There is no similar treaty with China. Further, if someone in the US cracked into government systems in the UK (and planted backdoors, etc, as this guy did at NASA as well as in DoD systems - or weren't you paying attention to the actual FACTS here?), the UK would be perfectly in their rights to ask for extradition of the US-based cracker. It's a treaty. It's a two-way street. You don't have to Google very hard at all to find examples of other countries agreeing to extradite people to the UK when the UK requests. Likewise, are you all uptight when Italy asks for extradition from the UK? Would you feel better if China's idea of reasonable prosecutions goverend how many extradition requests the US (or the UK, for that matter) had to deal with? They imprison and execute people for reasons we would never tolerate - we're sure as hell not going to enter an extradition treaty under those circumstances. Would I like all of the Chinese crackers to get busted? Sure. But many of them work for their government, so that's not really going to happen, is it?

Re:question....

[RockDoctor]

Gitmo? This guy is NOT a non-uniformed combatant attacking US troops or supporting those that do.

Being in or out of uniform (such as it existed at all in the Taliban army) had no relationship to whether or not you ended up in Gitmo. If you wore a uniform, you could end up in Gitmo ; if you didn't wear a uniform, you could end up in Gitmo ; if you drove a taxi, you might or might not end up in Gitmo.
Whatever rules existed (if any) over who ended up in Gitmo, being "in uniform", being Taliban, being Al-Quaeda, being a taxi driver, being a citizen of any country (other than America) ... all things that didn't have any significant effect on whether or not you ended up in Gitmo.
I suspect that gender and skin colour are the two main discriminators of whether or not you would end up in Gitmo (and I'm not sure that either of them were particularly significant).

Re:aliens are for real

[Eravnrekaree]

I should add i don't condone what he did. I am against such sorts of illegal activities. What he did I beleive was still of a look but done touch sort variety, not quite as harmful as someone bent on destruction, but still not something i condon. But nevertheless if you could show proof of these claims he made, that would have significant implications in helping us solve many of our problems such as our fossil fuel dependance. An supply of energy without having to burn up dirty fuels and ruin the environment to extract and process them would be a dream come true. Clean, inexpensive, safe, truly renewable and readily available energy would be a god send.

Re:Video of the Minnesota bridge collapse -- graph

[begbiezen]

link no good nothing (new) comes up for bridge or minnesota

Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it needs saying so someone better had. Firstly the guy is an unhinged twunt who got high on too much weed and went looking for "UFO evidence".
Ergo, he represents absolutely ZERO threat to the security of any group (unless of course you guys actually DO have those UFOs hidden :)

So basically he's being punished because he embarrased a US institution that should know better about computer security.

Secondly, we here in the UK are in a bit of pickle and wish this would go away. See, some crazy Russian murdered another Russian spy in London with some nasty radioactive poison. Pretty serious right? But if we want him to stand trial and be extradited from Russia then we'd have to give them an equally unpleasant mafia boss who is hiding in London that Putin wants. Stalemate. Both countries are hiding behind the skirt of "We don't extradite people to countries where they would face danger or unfair trial"

Problem: The USA is a country that tortures prisoners and disappears people to secret prisons and we know this because the UN has condemned it as a human rights abuser. We have a serious crediblity problem if this guy goes to the USA.

I see a deal.

Let's say, we give this dangerous hacker to the USA and they promise he'll get a fair trial In return and we'll take George W Bush for the multiple war crimes he's indited with to the International Crimial Court at the Haugue (and promise he will get a fair trial) and let's call it quits huh?

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

we know this because the UN has condemned [the USA] as a human rights abuser
we'll take George W Bush for the multiple war crimes he's indited with

Please cite your sources.

Re:Tit for tat

[_Sprocket_]

So basically he's being punished because he embarrased a US institution that should know better about computer security. You're wrong on this point. He's facing legal action because that's how the law works. He was caught during a time when NASA's practical concept of information security had more to do with handing over evidence to the FBI so they can go after the person than taking the technical steps required to make yourself a difficult target. Now he's facing down the slow grind of the law and trying every possible thing he can to avoid the crunch.

And while you or I might be embarrassed if we were a NASA official, I doubt you'll find one involved in this case. NASA (and much of the US Gov't) just doesn't get this kind of thing (or at least - didn't at one time... how much things have changed is another discussion).

Re:Tit for tat

[cunina]

You're asking for sources from someone who can't spell "indicted?" Don't hold your breath.

Re:Tit for tat

[rob1980]

The Daily KOS, duh.

Re:Tit for tat

[Oldav]

Well said, as for citing sources, its obvious that statement is true to anyone with a brain!

Re:Tit for tat

[kegon]

So basically he's being punished because he embarrased a US institution that should know better about computer security. You have got to be joking! He has only embarrassed himself, and now the joke is on him. Read this interview:

• He scanned 65,000 machines in about "8 minutes" by "tying together other people's machines" using a 56k dial up connection
• During a hacking escapade he chatted to an engineer who "saw" him, via WordPad
• His connection was so slow he wrote a clever program that "turned the colour down to 4bit colour and the screen resolution really, really low, and even then the picture was still juddering". Juddering ?! What kind of display was he using, a slide projector ?
• He couldn't save any of the pictures he downloaded but despite the "juddering" low resolution "It was a picture of something that definitely wasn't man-made" and what with the slow connection, when he got cut off "I saw the guy's hand move across."

C'mon, this guy is an utter joke, none of the above is plausible. If any of these claims were anywhere near true then he is a script kiddy at best. Mentally unstable more like.

See, some crazy Russian murdered another Russian spy in London with some nasty radioactive poison. Pretty serious right? Yep, a hell of a lot more serious than some gangster boss living in the UK is when a foreign government sanctions the use of radioactive materials on foreign soil. This is no mere assassination. What if the UK dropped a dirty bomb to the home address of the prime suspect in Russia ? That would be an act of war, wouldn't it ?

Re:Tit for tat

[Short Circuit]

* He scanned 65,000 machines in about "8 minutes" by "tying together other people's machines" using a 56k dial up connection
        * During a hacking escapade he chatted to an engineer who "saw" him, via WordPad
        * His connection was so slow he wrote a clever program that "turned the colour down to 4bit colour and the screen resolution really, really low, and even then the picture was still juddering". Juddering ?! What kind of display was he using, a slide projector ?
        * He couldn't save any of the pictures he downloaded but despite the "juddering" low resolution "It was a picture of something
that definitely wasn't man-made" and what with the slow connection, when he got cut off "I saw the guy's hand move across."
C'mon, this guy is an utter joke, none of the above is plausible. If any of these claims were anywhere near true then he is a script kiddy at best. Mentally unstable more like. The first item sounds like a botnet. I've (legally) done the second item, over VNC. The third item sounds plausible if he turns the VNC bit depth way, way down. And, yes, the outcome would behave very much like a slide projector on a dial-up connection.

As for the fourth item, I don't know why he didn't think to take a screenshot of his VNC window; That would have given him something to save. And I don't know what he was referring to by some guy's hand moving.

All in all, it sounds like he used a botnet to find a PC running unprotected VNC, and connected to it with compression turned way up, and color depth turned way down. At some point, some poor guy noticed his computer acting up on his own, and chatted with the cracker by opening up a text editor and taking turns typing. All of this is very plausible.

Re:Tit for tat

[bky1701]

I may not be him, but theres a lot of info here: http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/usa-summary-eng

Re:Tit for tat

[zoomshorts]

Precisely. Well explained.

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

Please cite your sources. CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC. Even Fox News occasionally lets down the side and reports a fact or two.

Re:Tit for tat

[cycoj]

Secondly, we here in the UK are in a bit of pickle and wish this would go away. See, some crazy Russian murdered another Russian spy in London with some nasty radioactive poison. Pretty serious right? But if we want him to stand trial and be extradited from Russia then we'd have to give them an equally unpleasant mafia boss who is hiding in London that Putin wants. Stalemate. Both countries are hiding behind the skirt of "We don't extradite people to countries where they would face danger or unfair trial"

Actually it is explicitly forbidden by the Russian constitution. I just read up on this, because I thought that almost all states don't extradite their own citizens (Germany has a similar "Artikel" in their constitution). Apparently it is a lot less common in common law countries. So the US, the UK ... do extradite their own citizens. So bottom line the UK are demanding that the Russians break their constitution.

Re:Tit for tat

[thej1nx]

What kind of clueless moderator mods this informative???

I take it that you have not heard of VNC or botnets?

A botnet is where a hacker takes control of a large number of computers(via viruses, trojans or other means) and uses them as a large cluster to perform collaborative tasks.

VNC is a protocol where you can send the screenshot images of the display to a remote computer, as well as providing control of keyboard and mouse, thus in effect allowing remote control of a computer.

And one would assume that a simple gun or just a normal bomb will be sufficient for state-sanctioned assassinations, no? Been reading/watching too many thriller novels/movies, are we?

Re:Tit for tat

[thej1nx]

Will this one do or do I get modded/called a troll for posting a fact?

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/05/19/usdom13418. htm

Reality is not what Bush preaches from his pulpit.

I assume that now you or someone else will post a large list of countries that have worse records?

Fine. But none of those are taking a holier-than-thou approach for excuses of invading other countries, are they?

Re:Tit for tat

[kegon]

The first item sounds like a botnet.

Isn't that what I'm implying ? He's scanning 65k machines via his botnet, running password checkers in just over 8 minutes. And he checks the IP addresses of all connected machines and can find whether they are military bases or not, 'cause he's got a list of military IP addresses ?

The third item sounds plausible if he turns the VNC bit depth way, way down

So he has VNC turned down to 4 bits but he can clearly see something is not man made ? Why would VNC judder ? The worst I've had is parts of the screen refreshing very slowly - but he's viewing a static image. And on this super slow connection it just so happens that the first picture he pulls up has the juicy details he's after ? Please. What about the bit where he says "although it was a low-resolution picture it was very close up" and "no rivets, no seams" ? Can you see individual rivets on the space shuttle or on the ISS from the higher quality, official NASA footage ?

some poor guy noticed his computer acting up on his own, and chatted with the cracker by opening up a text editor and taking turns typing. All of this is very plausible

Read the article, it's not "some guy" it's a "network engineer", in NASA, who thinks it's normal for someone else to be using his computer ? And what, he just fires up WordPad for a chat, as you normally do when someone is hacking your machine ?

Re:Tit for tat

[kegon]

Yes, yes, we know what a botnet is; and VNC. It's stretching it a bit to think this "super hacker" was doing all this stuff on a 56K dial up and 4 bit VNC don't you think ?

And one would assume that a simple gun or just a normal bomb will be sufficient for state-sanctioned assassinations, no?

Yeah, I would have thought so. So why did the Russian government use radioactive material to attack someone in a foreign country ? Don't you think that the trail (which spread to several places in London) could be likened to a dirty bomb ? And how many places can you get that stuff ? Two or three, which makes it highly likely to be state sanctioned. Do you think that's a fair comparison, Russia can assassinate someone in your country using a highly contaminating radioactive toxin against trying to extradite a gangster ?

Been reading/watching too many thriller novels/movies, are we? Read before you post!

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK it's not that clear cut, the Russian constitution doesn't explicitly say no extradition at all under any circumstances, instead it states that there should be no extradition for certain crimes or certain circumstances and the reason the British government has pushed it is because it's questionable whether or not Lugovoi is protected by these set of circumstances due to the fact it's such an unusual case.

There are also some contradictions in that Russia is signed up to the EU extradition treaty which agrees that signatories should extradite however at the same time there are clauses stating that they don't have to which muddies the waters somewhat.

On a final note it's worth pointing out that some countries constitutions are more guidelines and not taken as gospel as in the US meaning that the constitution doesn't always necessarily trump the decision of the courts/president/whoever. In fact recently Germany has been close to extraditing citizens to the US however the reason it didn't happen was not as a result of the constitution but because of the whole Guantanamo Bay no fair trial farce. Had the US legal system been shown to be fair and just this last few years Germany would've undoubtedly extradited at least some of these suspects against their constitution.

Re:Tit for tat

[Conor Turton]

The UN condemning something is hardly evidence of anything, but I don't think what you're talking about actually happened. So the CIA rendition flights that stopped over in the UK on their way to backwater countries where torture is legal didn't happen even though the British Govt finally admitted they did?

As it stands, the US is far gentler on our prisoners than most countries. Certainly gentler than freaking Britain. Riight. We have no Guantanamo Bay. Not to mention Iraq which allowed the US Forces to flood Youtube with masses of videos of war crimes being committed on Iraqi civilians.

Have you heard of Irish Terrorists? The USA hasn't because apparently, the USA is the only country in the Western world to have experienced terrorism on it's own soil. Fuck sake, the whining you did over the World Trade Center was unreal. We had decades of it.

Do you brits even have any rights anymore? Yes thanks. We don't have such wonderful legislation such as The Patriot Act.

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say, we give this dangerous hacker to the USA and they promise he'll get a fair trial In return and we'll take George W Bush for the multiple war crimes he's indited with to the International Crimial Court at the Haugue (and promise he will get a fair trial) and let's call it quits huh? ROR. Dream on:

"America has shown by the resilience and bravery of its people from September 11 that while buildings can be destroyed, values are indestructible. We acknowledge the debt the world owes to the U.S. for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism.

"Let me just stress that we're in a generation-long battle against terrorism, against al Qaeda-inspired terrorism, and this is a battle for which we can give no quarter. It's a battle that's got to be fought in military, diplomatic, intelligence, security, policing and ideological terms."

-- UKian Prime Minister Gordon Brown

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you REALLY just say 'it's true because the UN said so'? Are you THAT stupid?

The UN is a soapbox for every third world wannabe power to basically bad mouth the US. Have you ever WATCHED what goes on there?

The UN is so corrupt it makes the USSR look like disney land. To have IT accuse the US of ANYTHING is ludicrous.

You people spend so much time bad mouthing the US - I WISH for once we'd say 'You know what, you're right. We're done. We won't horn in on what goes on over there anymore.'

And watch the crying. And I mean a LOT of crying. Deep down you KNOW we are the ones that keep the bad guys in check.

Grow up and look around. If you think the US is the worst thing going on in the world, you seriously need a reality check. I'm so sick of it I wish we WOULD mind our own bussiness. Maybe it's time for the world to get another dose of Xenophobia from us - of course the last time we did that, you morons invented Hitler. Look where the tactic of 'let's just appease him and he'll be nice' got you. You think that crap will work with muslims? Try reading the koran.

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny to hear a Brit moaning about torture, or the Patriot Act. The Brits arrested, held, and tortured suspected IRA terrorists for years! In jolly old England police don't have to have "probable cause" to search your home, they only need "reasonable suspicion", a much lower legal standard.
Citizens of the crown have so many fewer protections than Americans enjoy under our constitution that they don't NEED a Patriot Act.
Also remember that in England "Big Brother" is always watching. London has more public surveillence cameras watching their citizens than any metropolitan city in the world.

Oh, and aren't there about 5500 British soldiers in Iraq? Hypocrite.
So why don't you quit your whining. Wanker.

Re:Tit for tat

[gordo3000]

as you did not provide a single source that bush or anyone in the US has been INDICTED for torture or human rights violations, no one needs to say anything about another country. you should, instead of posting a UN committee's recommendations, go back and read the original allegation and the response.

to quote: George W Bush for the multiple war crimes he's indited with to the International Crimial Court at the Haugue

the response asked for a single source for an indictment of George Bush. you have also failed to do that.

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

"Certainly gentler than freaking Britain. Have you heard of Irish Terrorists?"

"The USA hasn't because apparently, the USA is the only country in the Western world to have experienced terrorism on it's own soil. Fuck sake, the whining you did over the World Trade Center was unreal. We had decades of it."

I just want to butt in, and say you both sound like complete morons from here. Seriously, you seem to be argueing about who is worse, and who has it worse but both have the same completely closed off mentality.

Here's a clue:

1) Why did Irish terrorists attack the UK? Nothing to do with the British invading their country, killing people, and making the Irish second-class citizens in their own country I suppose.

2) Why do Middle-eastern terrorists want to attack the US? Nothing to do with invading countries, propping up one country over others and generally meddling in other peoples business, no?

You both lose, state sponsored terrorism elicits a response from terrorist groups and both your countries are guilty of this. Neither of you have the moral highground, and if you don't start thinking outside your own little areas then it will continue to bite you in the ass and cause problems for people everywhere. Seriously, get a fucking clue.

Re:Tit for tat

[TriezGamer]

Maybe it's time for the world to get another dose of Xenophobia from us - of course the last time we did that, you morons invented Hitler. Is German patent/copyright law enough of a deterrent to prevent a recurrance?

Re:Tit for tat

[cycoj]

On a final note it's worth pointing out that some countries constitutions are more guidelines and not taken as gospel as in the US meaning that the constitution doesn't always necessarily trump the decision of the courts/president/whoever. In fact recently Germany has been close to extraditing citizens to the US however the reason it didn't happen was not as a result of the constitution but because of the whole Guantanamo Bay no fair trial farce. Had the US legal system been shown to be fair and just this last few years Germany would've undoubtedly extradited at least some of these suspects against their constitution.

IMO the constitution has an even stronger position in countries which follow the french law system (forgot what it's called atm) than in countries which follow the common law system. So Germany for example the constitution is gospel and not just a guideline, I believe Russia to be similar. With regards to Germany extraditing it's citizens to the US. I think you're mistaken, this is not possible under the German constitution and every court would rule it as unlawful. There is an clause in the German constitution which allows for extradition to other EU countries or an international court, this was added as a result to the EU extradition treaty AFAIK. I think the cases you're thinking of are cases of German residents not citizens, the German constitution makes quite a clear distinction between rights which apply to all people and the ones which only apply to German citizens. Artikel 16 (which is the extradition article I think) only applies to German citizens.

Re:Tit for tat

[pjt33]

The British ambassador recently stirred things up by pointing out that Russia doesn't abide by its own constitution internally, citing as examples that it

states that economic activities aimed at monopolization are prohibited (Article 34); that people have the right to choose freely their place of residence in Russia, including in Moscow (Article 27); and that Duma deputies cannot engage in paid work (Article 97).

Re:Tit for tat

[thej1nx]

Learn to read and quote properly? *Two* statements were quoted. I take it that you are unable to comprehend that I chose to respond to one of them?

we know this because the UN has condemned [the USA] as a human rights abuser we'll take George W Bush for the multiple war crimes he's indited with

Or are we nitpicking about symantics... perhaps something lame like "since there was no formal 'condemnation', it automatically means no human rights violations occurred.

Ever heard of "abu gharaib"?

And pretty obvious that a US President can never even be indicted for war crimes, if he simply is going to exercise "executive privilege" to curb any and all investigations against him and his allies.

Idiot.

Re:Tit for tat

[thej1nx]

Yes, yes, we know what a botnet is; and VNC. It's stretching it a bit to think this "super hacker" was doing all this stuff on a 56K dial up and 4 bit VNC don't you think ?

Why is it "stretching" things?

If you know what a botnet is, what on earth makes you think they need some kind of broadband connection to be controlled? For that matter are you under some illusion that only people with a broadband connection have the capability to become a so-called "super hacker"?

Here is a clue : Most crackers/hackers rely on exploiting buffer overflows, bugs etc. in remote computers to gain control/access. A broadband connection is not necessarily required for that, most of the times(barring some man-in-the-middle/spoofing attacks). For that matter, pre-broadband there were tons of hacking attacks that did indeed work with just 56k connections, since that was all that was available. All that seems obvious is that a 56k connection was all what he was able to afford. And he made do with it.

Please watch a little less movies and novels, and actually read up on how exploits usually happen.

Yeah, I would have thought so. So why did the Russian government use radioactive material to attack someone in a foreign country ? Don't you think that the trail (which spread to several places in London) could be likened to a dirty bomb ? And how many places can you get that stuff ? Two or three, which makes it highly likely to be state sanctioned. Do you think that's a fair comparison, Russia can assassinate someone in your country using a highly contaminating radioactive toxin against trying to extradite a gangster ?

If you want conspiracy theories, here is a far more likely and logical one. If russia wanted to assassinate this guy, they would have simply had him poisoned, or killed in a road accident, or just shot by a sniper... no? A simple assassination would have made much less noise and news than using expensive radio-active material. It would have meant no bad press for Russia.

But if you take it that the other government actually *wanted* russia to look bad, usage of radio-active materials makes sense, since it ensured that people will be terrorised and media will sensationalize it even more. So yeah state-sanctioned... but not by Russia, if you think logically. Think before you post.

Re:Tit for tat

[gordo3000]

ok buddy, learn something about the law. anyone can be indicted for war crimes. George Bush cannot be indicted for it in a US court and nothing requires the US to allow any person in it's country to stand trial in an international court.

did I say I like George bush? did I saw I don't think a right's violation happened? No. so you shouldnt' assume that is what I was saying. I think a full investigation of the known human right's abuses should be investigated and if it is found that any person ordered those abuses, that person should stand trial in either or both the ICC and the US federal courts.

This isn't nit picking about semantics; it's you responding with a source that ignores the original comment. As you said, no formal condemnation has occurred. On top of that, George Bush hasn't been indicted with anything. therefore, your sources don't respond to the challenge brought.

You are doing the opposite of what Fox News does. Rather than making it seem like everything George bush implies is Gospel truth, you are warping different sources to make them fit under formal condemnations or indictments.

Re:Tit for tat

[thej1nx]

Which part of "I was not addressing his George Bush part of the two quotes" are you unable to understand?

If you are not totally blind or schizophrenic, you would have noticed that you had quoted *TWO* of his sentences. Learn to quote only the parts you are concerned with, then.

Re:Tit for tat

[Short Circuit]

He's scanning 65k machines via his botnet, IP scanning via botnet shouldn't be difficult; nmap is GPL'd, any botnet maker might steal the code and include it in their bot.

running password checkers in just over 8 minutes. I imagine the box running VNC wasn't password-protected. Or he might have installed VNC himself, if the box was running vulnerable software. Either is possible.

And he checks the IP addresses of all connected machines and can find whether they are military bases or not, 'cause he's got a list of military IP addresses ? You can have that list, too. Just google for "IANA IP allocation list", or some such. The list of IP allocations isn't a secret.

Re:Tit for tat

[thej1nx]

As regards your George bush claims, I can say only this in light of your arguements.

You are essentially arguing that George Bush as a US President cannot be questioned or made to stand liable/responsible for all and any of his actions while he is in power. In essence as per you, he can do whatever he wishes and refuse to be brought to liability by either the International courts and much more importantly, not even the congress and the will of the people.

That would be the definition of a dictator, wouldn't you think? Someone whose actions and decisions cannot be questioned. If they are, he will just claim "executive privilege" as he did just now.

I am not warping anything mate. I am just letting you see what your own statements essentially are. Not that Bush himself is of concern. He is, in all evidence, just a puppet for powerful corporates. Sadly, Bush will go and yet corporates will remain in control.

Your country, its democracy and constitution are horribly broken at the moment. My sympathies.

Re:Tit for tat

[kegon]

IP scanning via botnet shouldn't be difficult; nmap is GPL'd, any botnet maker might steal the code and include it in their bot.

Why is he scanning 65k machines when it's oh-so-easy to find the machines in the first place, they are locked down with default passwords and he has the prescience to immediately go to the folder he needs and pick the first image that happens to have all the juicy details...

I imagine the box running VNC wasn't password-protected

Then why not just scan for machines that aren't password protected ?

You can have that list, too. Just google for "IANA IP allocation list", or some such.

Yes, but I'm sure that list doesn't go 148.12.28.126 = top secret military base, 148.12.28.127 = army paperclip supplies. A list of IP addresses in itself doesn't really have that much information in it. If you were him would you really be interested in checking to see if other connections were authorised or not ? And he says "they were not military"; I don't think NASA equates to military (yet) so what is the big deal with military - I think he's just trying to add credibility to his feeble story.

I can see your point of view but you have to make far too many assumptions for it to work.

Re:Tit for tat

[kegon]

Why is it "stretching" things?

Let me see, I run VNC on an only moderately busy LAN and I get slow down, poor refresh rates and that is this year. This guy is claiming to have done all this hacking only about 4 years ago. He could easily have had much better hardware but then he can't claim to have "almost" got the information then can he ?

Have you used a VNC connection in 4 bit colour ? It's bad, very bad and certainly a waste of time for someone who wants to see some alien technology. Far easier to cut up the image into small pieces and transfer it out to his botnet and reassemble it and then he has some evidence.

I know all about how these exploits can happen Here's a clue for you: don't assume that you know everything, adding in these little barbs doesn't make your argument any stronger. The guy is stretching it with his Mitnick-wannabe behaviour; his descriptions are really poor and any one with an ounce of scepticism can see that immediately.

If russia wanted to assassinate this guy, they would have simply had him poisoned, or killed in a road accident, or just shot by a sniper... no? A simple assassination would have made much less noise and news than using expensive radio-active material.

The experts state that there are only about 3 places in Europe where you can get hold of such material; so you believe that another country with that kind of nuclear capability decided that it's OK to go to all this effort just to put Russia in a bad light ? And I suppose the fact that the prime suspect is some high up Russian military intelligence officer who met the victim at exactly the right time and places where contamination was found is just a coincidence ?

Given your penchant for "more likely and logical" reasons, don't you think that's a little odd ? Or perhaps you think Russia did it because no one would believe that they didn't do it so automatically everyone would discard Russia from the list of suspects... That's the type of reasoning you're using.

Re:Tit for tat

[Anonymous Coward]

and nothing requires the US to allow any person in it's country to stand trial in an international court.

Actually, treaties can require the United States to allow people in its country to be tried in an international court. Read the U.S. Constitution to find out what the legal force of a treaty is. Then review the congressional record to find out what treaties the U.S. is a signatory to.

Assuming Bush does not flee to South America after vacating the White House (he bought a lot of land down there around the time Abu Ghraib made headlines), it would be good for the next U.S. government to bring him to justice.

Figured out RIAA-style

[EmbeddedJanitor]

He allegendly downloaded at 1266 files * $750 per file * approx 0.5 GBP per $ = approx GBP 475k

Don't you mean "Cracker"

[racyrefinedraj]

I read "Nasa Hacker" as a talented programmer employed by NASA. Isn't this place nerdy enough not to fall into calling crackers hackers?

Re:Don't you mean "Cracker"

[loteck]

We're apparently not even nerdy enough to properly capitalize NASA in the story headline.

Be that as it may, I think I should be able to mod you down as "Bitching About Use of 'Hacker'". Give it up already.

Re:Don't you mean "Cracker"

[neophytepwner]

I think someone was pretty stupid to let Gary McKinnon remotely control their computer, or it was allowed for some reason. Anyway this is not the kind of guy you want to put away, if anything hire him. Obviously he shows how vulnerable our security is, it might be good to take a hint.

Re:Don't you mean "Cracker"

[gbobeck]

Isn't this place nerdy enough not to fall into calling crackers hackers?

I just call the guy an "Asshole". Makes everything so much easier.

Re:Don't you mean "Cracker"

[DaveAtFraud]

Yeah, but since he's British it would have been calling him a "biscuit" which would have just gotten everybody confused.

The original usage of "hacker" (circa late 1970s) was someone who was *unskilled* at programming. Hacking at a program meant making random changes with little understanding of the problem until something approaching the correct answer appeared (usually a futile approach).

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Don't you mean "Cracker"

[nacturation]

Indeed, and whatever happened to "horseless carriage"? Bring that back, dammit!

Re:Don't you mean "Cracker"

[andy314159pi]

Oh, good sir, I do believe you are referring to a motor car !

Re:Don't you mean "Cracker"

[racyrefinedraj]

This seems like a reasonable compromise.

Re:Don't you mean "Cracker"

[delvsional]

We're apparently not even nerdy enough to properly capitalize NASA in the story headline.

Be that as it may, I think I should be able to mod you down as "Bitching About Use of 'Hacker'". Give it up already.

If you wanted to mod him down, you probably shouldn't have posted. Don't worry about it, I'll do it...Oh Wait....Shit...

Re:Don't you mean "Cracker"

[DikSeaCup]

Which is also why (and I think this is fairly common in the vernacular) to use the term "hack" as applied to coding to mean something along the lines of "A code tidbit that uses a kind of brute force or inelegant (and possibly buggy) solution to a problem because the 'proper' methods are unknown (due to inexperience) or aren't working for some reason (which makes one feel like they've been banging their head against concrete)."

I did some unrealscript coding recently where the function calls to correct a bug (that shouldn't have actually existed in the first place) didn't appear to actually correct the bug. So instead I rewrote the code to change the value of a variable for the object experiencing the bug directly. The best analogy I can come up with is that, instead of using the "shutdown" option in the GUI, or using the power button on the front of the box, I flip the switch on the power supply on the back of the machine.

Wins Right?

[Anonymous Coward]

For some reason, I thought rights were something you have, not something you earn.

This guy sounds like a Skr1p7 k1dd13.

[Anonymous Coward]

A "former system administrator"? What, did he run a home email server using Windows 2000 and IIS?

The guy spent some time locating unsecured entry points to high profile sites and is then heralded by the clueless media rabble as some kind of "uberhacker", instead of the fool he really is.

It doesn't take skill to do the kind of thing his type did, just a lack of good sense. He probably thought nobody would ever notice...maybe he even left clues so that he would get noticed...

Re:aliens are for real

[sssssss27]

Just because the technologies don't exist doesn't mean he didn't read about them. Perhaps NASA has some dummy files set up to occupy anyone that actually does it get in. It's happened before where a guy needed to slow down a hacker in order for a trace to be performed. The non-fiction story is written in the book The Cuckoo's Egg

Re:aliens are for real

[RockoTDF]

Well there is this car my dad bought me that drives off and shit....

Rights?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Here is where we get into some thorny issues. What are rights? Can someone has more rights in one country than another? Is whats fair here fair in in a different country. If we agree that there are differences in rights between people living in one country versus another, than how can we even talk about human rights abuses? I maintain that your rights are as the US constitution would state: God given, meaning in this context they are the same everywhere independent of any countries laws. To believe in universal rights, is to believe in universal wrongs. In this case, he should be tried for his alleged crimes as his potential treatment in the US would not violate his rights ( as they are unlikely to sentence him to the death penalty or Gitmo his ass).

or can anybody defend moral relativism and still support Universal Human Rights? I'd be interested to hear the argument, to say the least.

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are differences in morality and ethics between peoples, countries, and in time. The fact that we can argue about human rights is no argument to say that rights are universally the same(we argue about a lot of nonsense). In addition, there are treaties around that agree on human rights. That is why they work, not because they are some universal set-in-stone kind of rights. It is just because we all agree on them, that they are universal. And it would not surprise me in the least if they will be adapted over time; which would also show they are not universal at all.

I'm sorry to break it to you, seems like the founding fathers got it wrong. (well, in their defense, it depends on how you read it. Don't they say "we =believe= that these rights...". In that case, it shows that they know it is their view of ethics. We believe, and thus someone else may well believe different things.)

Re:Rights?

[Corporate Troll]

I'm European and while visiting the US, I made a joke that went way over someones head. That person said that I couldn't say that, and I replied that the US had free speech... That person then replied that as a foreigner I had no rights in the US.

Now, that person may have been joking, but it most certainly didn't look that way when she said that.... The scary thing is that right now, I'm pretty sure that is entirely true.

Re:Rights?

[Dragonslicer]

That person then replied that as a foreigner I had no rights in the US. That might technically be true (e.g. I don't know if you could be prevented from buying firearms solely because you aren't a U.S. citizen), but you still can't be (legitimately) arrested for something that isn't illegal. Even if you technically don't have constitutional rights, I don't think that any law enforcement would try anything for fear of a massive international uproar. Unless they can find a way to label you as a terrorist, of course. Then all bets are off.

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great non-story, since we have no clue what your "joke" was. Have you considered you have a horrible sense of humor?

Re:Rights?

[spiderbitendeath]

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constit ution

That person was very wrong. The 14th amendment states that they have to apply equal protection to any person, it does not specify they have to be a citizen.

Re:Rights?

[Corporate Troll]

I don't think that any law enforcement would try anything for fear of a massive international uproar.

As if international uproar would stop the US in anything? Frankly?

Unless they can find a way to label you as a terrorist, of course. Then all bets are off.

You already gave the answer yourself. All bets are off, once there is a loophole within the system. Basic human rights can't be granted anymore... Human rights, are these silly rights I should have inherently...

Re:Rights?

[rbanffy]

I would like to point out that as much as the Founding Fathers of the US may have believed, the rights granted by the US constitution do not extend beyond its borders. I would also like to add, that, as good as it is (and it is really good one, as far as constitutions go), the US constitution is not perfect and it is general perception it is currently being disrespected by law-enforcement and government officials in its so called "War on Terror".

While I do not condone what Mr. McKinnon did, there are laws in the UK that may have been disregarded by US law-enforcement officials.

As for Mr. McKinnon himself, I would recommend him (and anyone who believes such conspiration theories) seeking psychological assistance. Stating that NASA is hiding alien technology while having loads of trouble just getting to LEO in crude (by even the lowest sci-fi standards) spaceships, while failing to produce any evidence of that, does not lend him much credibility.

Re:Rights?

[Corporate Troll]

Frankly, I knew that that person was wrong (Just on common sense, because whatever I think of the US now, I have great respect for the brilliant minds behind the US Constitution). Alas I'm not the person that will lecture someone over their own Constitution, because it could bring me in bigger trouble than I already was. The real problem is that many Americans actually think that foreigners have no rights on their soil. This ignorance is extremely dangerous.

Worst is, this was a College educated woman... Not some backwater redneck I met in a local bar.

Re:Rights?

[vux984]

Its telling to note that those UK citizens arrested in Afghanistan (iirc) and shipped to Guantanamo were denied their rights in any country. Granted that they were not actually in the US at any point - but they were under US jurisdiction for the entire time and they were all declared not to be POWs. They (along with all the other 'detainees') were deliberately put in limbo where they had no rights, and subjected to what most reasonable people would agree is torture.

For what its worth I think it actually IS illegal, but any chance of actually prosecuting anyone involved is nil. Between firing prosecutors who aren't Bushies, hiding everything behind the impenetrable shroud of national security and the fact that Bush will ignore rulings, commute sentences or pardon anyone who still manages to get convicted makes it a pretty much moot point.

"National Security" is an area where the checks and balances just don't work; because it trumps everyone else and shuts down any line of inquiry. If an administration has the will (or the gall) to misuse that power there simply is no proper recourse.

(And although I think the Bush administration is awful, they aren't the first to abuse national security and they won't be the last; they are merely the most recent (and at least among the most blatant). At any rate its not a republican vs democrat issue. Give anyone that power and you'll see it abused.

Re:Rights?

[lawpoop]

It is true that only American citizens enjoy the rights and protections afforded by the US constitution. But you aren't totally out in the cold -- you are still protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory.

Re:Rights?

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Clarification: I'm did not mean to imply that the US constitution is the perfect document, simply that it referred to universal rights. Now that I think about it, I might be thinking of the declaration of independence.

I still maintain that its the height of hypocrisy to enforce Human rights in countries that don't agree on them ( China, North Korea, many arab states, Isreal,ect), if we do not hold that they transcend the laws of man.

Re:Rights?

[pthor1231]

Maybe you haven't been to some of our illustrious colleges here, but a lot of them do produce backwater rednecks.

Re:Rights?

[oliderid]

That's why there are treaties and agreements between countries. The declaration of Human Rights is a treaty signed by various UN members. usually the national parliament is responsible to "apply" the treaty into the national laws.

For Europe: There is also a European declaration of Human Rights signed by European council members.

For the UN I don't know if you can defend your rights in a international justice court. But for the later, I do know that an European Court can protect your rights against national juridiction.

Re:Rights?

[CrimsonAvenger]

you are still protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory

No. The UDHR is is a non-binding resolution of the UN. It was intended that the various governments around the world import its tenets into their own laws, but, so far as I know, the USA has always just muddled along with its own Bill of Rights.

Which, it should be noted, apply theoretically to everyone, everywhere. Though there are holes - even a US Citizen does not have a Right to buy a firearm outside his home state, for instance. Much less a non-citizen.

Re:Rights?

[JazzLad]

Is that like being protected by the Geneva Convention?

I'm not trying to be a troll, but we did kinda agree to that back in the day and lately are trying to weasel out of it. The current administration seems to feel rights are great, unless yours (or mine) get in their way, then they are pesky things to be circumvented through new definitions (ala enemy combatant, etc).

This is just my experience. If you have mod points & disagree please tell me why & share your perspective rather than mod me into oblivion.

Re:Rights?

[camperslo]

...how can we even talk about human rights abuses?

You insensitive clod!

You speak of universal rights, but don't even see the bigotry in narrowing rights abuses concerns to humans.
Other life forms and machines have feelings too.

Since there is much debate as to whether lawyers are a form of anti-matter or merely another type of subhuman, there is reason to question their being suitable to mediate this. If this guy has been probing around in machines in a bad way, maybe the machines should be the ones to find justice. They're getting more and more networked all the time. One of these days he's going to go in for that colonoscopy.

I think this is the perfect occasion to dust off the archives of Lost In Space episodes and watch The Great Vegetable Rebellion again. If you haven't seen it, consider it mandatory sensitivity training.

Re:Rights?

[Mattsson]

There are international human rights that most countries adhere to. Those you always have with you unless you enter a country who do not recognize them.
Local rights and laws apply only in the locality.
It has nothing to do with people living in one country versus another. It has to do with your physical location at the present moment.
If you're in the US, you have to follow US laws and are protected by US rights, regardless of your nationality.
If you're in Egypt, you have to follow Egyptian laws and are protected by Egyptian rights, regardless of your nationality.
If you're in China, you have to follow Chinese laws and are protected by Chinese rights, regardless of your nationality.
Etc, etc...

If you can get to an embassy or some such before the local law enforcement can get to you, you might get around this.
The embassies, diplomatic vehicles and most military bases on foreign soil are considered to be a part of the country it belongs to. The latter is mostly practiced by the US and there are exceptions to this where the US don't want to have to follow US law and thus have military bases/prisons where you, in theory, won't be protected by US law or have US rights even if you enter.

Yadda, yadda...

As an example, there was a rather comical incident a while back due to these circumstances.
A chain of hotels here in Sweden was bought by a US corporation. They then was required to deny rooms to citizens of countries which US corporations are forbidden by US law to have business with. Such discrimination, though, is illegal by Swedish law, which they have to follow while doing business in Sweden.
Can't remember how it was resolved in the end... =/

Re:Rights?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Precisely what rights do you believe you do not have, such that other people have the right to violate them against you, as the default position?

How did they get this right, and why do you grant it to begin with?

People...what? Have the right to take, at their whim, stuff you worked hard to make, because you have no right to property? To take your very life because you have no right to life?

Please list which rights aren't really rights because you think other people have the right (say what?) to violate you.

Re:Rights?

[crotherm]

It is true that only American citizens enjoy the rights and protections afforded by the US constitution. But you aren't totally out in the cold That is not true. The Constitution says what the Government can and cannot do, period. It does not mention status of a person. (accept for the now overturned stuff about slaves)

Re:Rights?

[Crunchie Frog]

This is not a troll. Idiot mods.

Re:Rights?

[Valdrax]

It's complex. Clearly, the language in the Constitution does not only restrict the actions of the US government against citizens. Due process, freedom of speech, religion, and press; freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc. are no limited in description to only belonging to US citizens, and since the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are phrased in the form of restrictions on government, it shouldn't matter.

However, the 14th Amendment does limit itself to talking about citizens when barring the individual states from creating laws that discriminate against citizens of the United States. Also, Supreme Court decisions have split hairs between the rights of citizens and non-citizens in the past. I wish I could name some cases off the top of my head, but racial policies and wartime policies have both left a pretty nasty scar on the freedoms espoused in the Bill of Rights. Dig around for the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision and read up on the previous decisions it references if you care.

Overall, though, non-citizens 99% of the legal protection of citizens in the US. Whether this status is protected from changes in law by the courts is another matter, however.

Re:Rights?

[spiderbitendeath]

I dropped out of a technical school I was trying to get a degree through because I couldn't stand how much of the material they taught was out right lies. Our school system is pathetic.

Re:Rights?

[Corporate Troll]

It's not lies in a schooling context... It's brainwashing and propaganda ;-)

Re:Rights?

[RockDoctor]

You speak of universal rights, but don't even see the bigotry in narrowing rights abuses concerns to humans.
Other life forms and machines have feelings too.

Since there is much debate as to whether lawyers are a form of anti-matter or merely another type of subhuman,

Setting aside the joking, a few months ago an animal rights group in (IIRC) Austria was seriously (as in High Court, if not Supreme Court) trying to challenge the treatment of a chimpanzee in a zoo on the grounds of violation of it's "humane" rights. The court accepted that there was a case to consider, and by implication that the full panoply of human rights might extend to non-human primates. Which then opens up a whole big can of worms (which as we know, intrinsically an inalienably have more human rights than a terrorist).

Re:Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not trying to be a troll, but we did kinda agree to that back in the day and lately are trying to weasel out of it.

1864, 1906, 1929, 1949 and 1977 (signed but not ratified by the Senate).

And weaseling out of it is not new for the USA, and it is not alone in being weaselly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disarmed _Enemy_Forces&oldid=144315291 is an example of "reclassification" of POWs under the 1929 Convention rules.

To the credit of the USA, the Third Geneva Convention that eliminated this particular loophole happened mainly because of pressure by American citizens and politicians.

Also, to be clear, the behavior of the USA towards its prisoners was far from shocking in the context of the decade of massacres and forced labor camps prior to the end of the war in Europe, and that there was even a perceived need to have a legal basis on which to order German troops to work without compensation is considerably closer to respecting the rule of law than several of the other Allied Powers ever got (many of whom, like the USSR, were not signatories to the 1929 Geneva Convention, and were happy to continue the tit-for-tat barbaric mistreatments of prisoners meted out by the Axis and Allied powers who were non-signatories or who were signatories but weaseled out of (or completely ignored) their Article 82 obligations not to mistreat prisoners from non-signatory states).

I don't doubt that eventually the USA will ratify the 1977 protocols and that the trend of America as a beacon of democracy and ethical state behavior will return, since it is ingrained in so many Americans' psyches. It's just that cosmopolitanism and internationalism seem to have been repressed in recent administrations and congresses, and it's terribly disheartening for fans of America outside the USA too.

Re:Rights?

[bentcd]

Please list which rights aren't really rights because you think other people have the right (say what?) to violate you. 1. Copyright

This is Informative

[rajafarian]

I'd mod you up if I had mod points. Thanks for the info, oh man with a Slashdot ID somewhat higher than mine!

Redux

[rs79]

Are you saying NASA's security is so bad a drug addled lunatic can break it?

Re:Redux

[belligerent0001]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally

Re:Redux

[rbanffy]

I am not sure about drugs, but about lunacy... Seriously, the man needs to be hospitalized, not a imprisoned.

Re:aliens are for real

[ScentCone]

The non-fiction story is written in the book The Cuckoo's Egg

Which is indeed an interesting (if, these days, rather quaint) read. But: his honeypot was plausible(-ish) stuff. The twit from the UK, in this case, already had himself convinced - having watched too many episodes of The X-Files - that all sorts of mysterious alien technology was being hidden by NASA, and so every context-less snippet of anything he saw just propped up his delusion. That, or instead of being delusional, he's just a particularly flaming liar. Or both. Doesn't matter... I don't think NASA would set up an "alien tech" honeypot. The institutional sense of humor isn't that far along.

Don't worry.

[LaminatorX]

Since the rest of the world has nothing but respect for the integrity of our justice system and rule of law, the Lords should honor our extradition request and send him on presently.

(...and if not, we'll just grab him and stash him someplace, forever.)

The Law Lords

[flyingfsck]

is not the same thing as the House of Lords. The Law Lords is the highest court in the British Commonwealth.

Re:The Law Lords

[Marty200]

is not the same thing as the House of Lords. The Law Lords is the highest court in the British Commonwealth.

So where do the time lords fit into that hierarchy?

Re:The Law Lords

[nacturation]

So where do the time lords fit into that hierarchy? Go down the hall and it's the fourth dimension on the right.

Re:The Law Lords

[Petrushka]

That is incorrect. The House of Lords has, amongst its other functions, a judicial function as the highest court in the land; the Law Lords (who are members of the House of Lords) are the people who perform that function.

Re:The Law Lords

[JonathanR]

Same level as any of the Overlords?

Re:The Law Lords

[Anonymous Coward]

And he hasn't won the right, either. As long as you keep appealing, you will end up at the Law Lords. Their say, however, is final.

Re:The Law Lords

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't. They're all dead. Gallifrey has been destroyed during the last war with the Daleks.

And you should know that the Doctor doesn't "fit" in any hierarchy.

Re:The Law Lords

[Dunbal]

So where do the time lords fit into that hierarchy?

      I don't think it's a question of where, rather - WHEN.

      (cue Dr. Who theme)

Re:The Law Lords

[Andrew Aguecheek]

Only in a technical sense. The Law Lords by constitutional convention do not sit in the House of Lords, and in fact by 2009 will no longer be members.

Re:aliens are for real

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes actually, I have and I'd like to see you prove any different.

Re:aliens are for real

[omeomi]

You know why people starve in Africa? It's cause they have like 30 children.

I think, generally speaking, when you have a vast impoverished region, it has more to do with horribly corrupt governments, and not so much to do with having "like 30 children". From what I understand, families in highly impoverished areas with high mortality rates do tend to have a lot of children, with the hope that some of them will actually survive, and maybe even prosper, but I would suggest that's more an effect of poverty rather than a cause of it. The reason that average American doesn't have tons of children isn't because we're smarter than the rest of the world, it's because all of our children have a reasonably good chance at survival, and a good chance at a comfortable life. Their chances at success are made better if we only have a few children, so we can afford to pay for their education, but in a region like Darfur, having just 2 children and hoping for the best probably means none of your children will make it to adulthood...

Re:aliens are for real

[jimbug]

And I'd like to see you prove that it is fake.

whats wrong with w2k and iis?

[Anonymous Coward]

lunix freak.

Plea Bargain

[BrookHarty]

I thought it was because the UK doesn't have a Plea bargain agreement system, it would break UK law.
So the US basically said accept our plea or end up in prison for life. I think thats where the human rights issue also comes in.

One of the biggest problems with US law is the plea bargain system, thats why the laws are so horrible, it makes people want to bargain instead of going to court. Its not to punish people, its to keep everyone out of jury trials.

Hell, if everyone went to a trial for everything, could you imagine the crippling effect it would have on the courts? Everyone citizen would have to pull multiple jury trails to keep up with it.

Re:aliens are for real

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but the ESA sure have!

Lol.

[msimm]

I can see from your member number how you would have missed that discussion. I think everyone finally got tired of pointing it out. The editors and much of the newer members fit, lets say, a wider interpretation of the profile you might expect. Slashdot has gotten big. It's still fun, but don't expect it to be too rootsy. More like techsploitation. Like The Register, only without the witty write-ups but much funnier comments (trolls, idiots as well as the good ones).

Still, usually a good laugh to be found.

Re:aliens are for real

[DarkIye]

Exactly. And since the only way to feed yourself is to run your own farm, you need quite a few farm hands to carry out all the necessary tasks. The only free labour (no money to hire anyone) is your own children. Add in the fact that there's no way in hell you're going to have savings for later life (and thus you need a progeny), that most of your kids will be miscarried, die in childbirth or early life, or get shot by/recruited into a gang or child army, and you realise that your only option is to have kids, and lots of them.

Whatcha find ?

[Joebert]

I bet the only reason this is happening is because the Lords think he found somthing out & they want to know what that is.

Let us in & we'll make sure you stay here, type stuff.

extradition

[cycoj]

I'm surprised that this is even possible. Germanys constitution forbids the extradition of German citizens I actually thought it was the same for the UK. Well guess I was wrong.

Re:extradition

[nogginthenog]

The UK only under certain conditions. e.g there is no possibility of the death penality for the crimes committed.

Re:extradition

[Anonymous Coward]

Th UK does not have a constitution.

Re:extradition

[pjt33]

I must say I'm surprised at the countries which prohibit extradition of their citizens whatever the circumstances. It seems to give their citizens carte blanche to commit crime so long as they travel to do it - unless they have mechanisms set up to try them at home for crimes committed abroad, where the witnesses and investigating police are located abroad.

Re:extradition

[cycoj]

That's essentially it. In most common law countries there is a strong emphasis on the locality of the crime. This is not the case in countries like Germany. You can and will be prosecuted for crimes you have committed overseas. I think you can even be prosecuted for something which is not necessarily illegal in the country you visited. IIRC there where some cases with sex tourists to Thailand etc. having sex with children, which was not illegal there but was in Germany.

Is there anything we can do to help?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anything we (Americans) can do to help him fight extradition? I believe that what he did was wrong, but he is tried here he is likely to get a sentence which violates my sense of justice. He should not be extradited, and he probably has suffered enough at this point that I don't feel like it would be justice to punish him any further.

Oh, and if he does get extradited, one thing we (Americans) can and should do is make a point of serving on juries. You never know what kind of case you're going to get. You could be sitting on this guy's jury some day.

Poodle

[giorgosts]

Britain is America's poodle. This guy, for all intends and purposes, has to be tried in the UK, by the British system. Does the USA extradite American nationals to the UK? Do they extradite them e.g. to Italy, where several CIA agents have been sentenced (in absentia) for conspiracy?

Re:Poodle

[untaken_name]

for all intends and purposes

You meant "for all intents and purposes". That's all right, though. I forgive you. Personally, I prefer to use the phrase "for all intense sand porpoises". I would have accepted that as well. I do give you bonus points for insulting poodles, however.

Re:Poodle

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans genuinely don't realize how subservient our (The British) Government is to the US (This goes back to the aftermath of WW2 when we had to give up almost everything to get some kind of break on the War loans - Which we finally paid off last Christmas!)

It is far easier (unless you have a very good lawyer) for a UK Citizen to be extradited from Britain to the US than it would be to be extradited from say California to Texas- the legal safeguards are minimal. In contrast to get a US citizen extradited over here is more or less impossible.

Fundamentally, although we all like to hate how the American government operates, and what it is becoming under recent leaders, You gain a lot from living in a country which at, least in principle, belongs to the people, rather than one where its the other way round. Even the wording on the passports (my son is a dual citizen) is very revealing. The US passport section on dual citizenship says (I paraphrase) 'If you get any grief from the other country let us know and the full power of the USofA will be behind you'.
The British one basically says 'tough shit pal, its your problem'

Re:Poodle

[untaken_name]

You said "our" when refurring to the British. That would implie that you are British. Why ain't you able to write proper English? Statisticly speaking, it was your furst language. Your people invented it. Why would U torture it so? WHY?

Re:Poodle

[DaveV1.0]

Does the USA extradite American nationals to the UK?

Yes, they do. Now sit down and shut the fuck up.

Re:Poodle

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm...

Because Im the product of a British Educashyun System. We are actively duming down our citisens so that they can only vote for Labor in future....

OOgghh, my brain hurtz....

Re:Poodle

[untaken_name]

Good ansur!

Re:Poodle

[jgoemat]

But the "crime" was committed in the USA. Let's say he traveled to the USA and robbed a bank while he was here. Should he still be tried in the UK?

Hyperbole Hack

[_Sprocket_]

Gary McKinnon, the UK-based ex-systems administrator accused of conducting the biggest military hack of all time... I would think... maybe... Titan Rain might trump McKinnon's efforts. But hey - I know there's a long tradition in journalism. The subject of your "hacker" article is always a wunderkin uber-hacker responsible for the absolute pinnacle in hacking history. Always.

Re:Hyperbole Hack

[timmyson]

Yeah, but this is one guy. They don't know if Titan Rain is a whole organization, or even the entire Chinese military establishment.

Re:Hyperbole Hack

[_Sprocket_]

Yeah, but this is one guy. They don't know if Titan Rain is a whole organization, or even the entire Chinese military establishment. Does it matter? The writer dubbed it "the biggest military hack of all time." There's no qualifier for manpower involved. And while there's little public information about the detail of either case, what is available implies a higher degree of complexity (and perhaps effectiveness) in the Titan Rain case.

Re:aliens are for real

[shutdown -p now]

From what I understand, families in highly impoverished areas with high mortality rates do tend to have a lot of children, with the hope that some of them will actually survive, and maybe even prosper, but I would suggest that's more an effect of poverty rather than a cause of it. The reason that average American doesn't have tons of children isn't because we're smarter than the rest of the world, it's because all of our children have a reasonably good chance at survival, and a good chance at a comfortable life. Their chances at success are made better if we only have a few children, so we can afford to pay for their education, but in a region like Darfur, having just 2 children and hoping for the best probably means none of your children will make it to adulthood...

That accounts for some of the difference, but not all of it. It does not explain the fact that, in most First World countries, the birthrate is low enough that population in fact decreases, while in most poor countries it does instead increase, and it does that in the poorest African countries in particular.

Re:aliens are for real

[vidarh]

In poor countries, having children grow to adulthood is an insurance for your old age.

Industrialized countries all used to have similarly have high birthrates until life expectancy started increasing as better hygiene and medicine made an impact together with improved food availability, and particularly as infant mortality dropped.

However, birth rates in most sub-Saharan countries have now finally started falling, coinciding with growing urbanization, and steadily dropping infant mortality. In fact, in some countries the birth rate have dropped by 20-30 percent over the last couple of decades.

The particularly high birth rates over the last decades was similar to those found in Europe a century ago, just as the effects of reducing infant mortality was creating a huge gap because people were still reproducing according to the old patterns. Further reductions in infant mortality combined with education and improved availability of contraceptives was what closed that gap and brought European birthrates down over the following decades.

Birth control....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think, generally speaking, when you have a vast impoverished region, it has more to do with horribly corrupt governments, and not so much to do with having "like 30 children". From what I understand, families in highly impoverished areas with high mortality rates do tend to have a lot of children, with the hope that some of them will actually survive, and maybe even prosper, but I would suggest that's more an effect of poverty rather than a cause of it. The reason that average American doesn't have tons of children isn't because we're smarter than the rest of the world, it's because all of our children have a reasonably good chance at survival, and a good chance at a comfortable life. Their chances at success are made better if we only have a few children, so we can afford to pay for their education, but in a region like Darfur, having just 2 children and hoping for the best probably means none of your children will make it to adulthood... It also has to do with people's fear of being uncared for in their old age. In a country where you have no pension system or health insurance the best way of guaranteeing that you won't have to starve in your old age is to have lots of kids. Lack of access to birth control also plays a role in how common large families are in the third world. Another penomenon in some communities both in the poorer developing world as well as in some more developed regions is a lopsided male/female ratio caused by gender-selection since girls are often less valued than boys. Girls are often exposed, aborted or their survival rate is simply lower because what expensive health care a family can afford is lavished on the beloved sons. This is becoming an epidemic in some regions in China. From what I have been told by a friend of mine who used to be involved in aid work, the advantages of being able to control how many kids they have is not something that is lost on people in the developing world. If anybody thinks I am trying to put down poor people and people in developing countries, all of the things I have described so far used to be features of communities in W-Europe and N-America until quite recently and that includes my own country. Here in the west we take things like birth control pills and condoms for granted but in the developing world birth control is often out of people's reach financially or it's not available due to the inadequate state of their country's infrastructure and healthcare system which as you pointed out is often the result of corruption and colossal inefficiency brought about by cronyism and mismanagement. Paradoxically in some cultures (both in developed and developing countries) what some people want isn't just plain old birth control as we know it today, it's gender selective birth control. If that technology ever becomes easily available (and I'm sure an elite group of biotech companies is hard at work ensuring it will be) it will further exacerbate the problem of lopsided male/female ratios.

taunting!=touting

[Anonymous Coward]

At least make the language of your flames correct.

NPCC press conference, 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

US Air Force and US Navy staff giving evidence www.topsecrettestimony.com/npcc_full.wmv

Coverup or disinfo op?

A serious question nobody has answered here

[Anonymous Coward]

US Air Force and US Navy staff giving evidence www.topsecrettestimony.com/npcc_full.wmv
 
Coverup or disinfo op? Discuss.

Re:Video of the Minnesota bridge collapse -- graph

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm..worse in what way?

There are likely to be less people killed than 9/11 - other similar disasters round the world have killed 30-70 people.

Morally, an accident is usually considered less 'bad' than an intentional act - this currently looks like an accident.

The total cost and local impact of the bridge collapse both look less than 9/11.

The only area I can see it as possibly worse is that it looks like bad engineering, while there was no substantial claim of bad engineering in 9/11.

Innocent people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Compounding a crime has nothing to do with plea bargaining. In almost all cases, the defendant could be considered to have committed several different crimes, with different penalties. A plea bargain is just a negotiation between the two sides as to which crime the defendant will plead guilty to and how great a penalty will be imposed.
Immunity from prosecution in return for testimony comes closer, of course, but in that case, the benefit is to the public, not to the prosecutor personally. That's a bit of an idealized description of the plea bargaining system. A lot of people actually make plea agreements even if they are innocent simply because a guaranteed reduced jail term is preferable to the risk of getting a longer sentence since all they are likely to get to defend the in a trial is a public defender and they can't afford the extortionate price of proving their innocence by hiring a real lawyer and a legion of expert witnesses. The worst humiliation is that even if you take a plea agreement if you are innocent because you have no alternative, getting parole still requires you to grovel, confess to the crime you didn't commit, and explain how much you regret committing it. If your pride gets the better of you and you refuse to do so you still get to serve the full sentence plea agreement or not.

Re:Innocent people...

[techno-vampire]

Innocent people don't agree to a plea bargain just because they can't afford a lawyer. They do so because lazy "public defenders" push them into it because it's easier than mounting a proper defense. From what I understand, the most common outcome when the defendant isn't guilty but doesn't think they can prove it is "No Contest." That is, they're accepting the punishment without actually admitting guilt. The plea is always negotiated, and has the advantage (for the defendant) that it can't be used against them in any civil case. Of course, IANAL, and my understanding could very easily be wrong.

biggest military hack of all time

[rs232]

They used the same image with the same default admin password on all the machines. How he was caught. He then used a remote desktop app to control the machines and wrote msgs in notpad to the admin. He says there were lots of people on at the same time as him. The machines contained nothing but low level logistic and stock records. Besides which Gary was smoking so much dope at the time that he forgot what he saw.

"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."

They should let him light up a spliff in the dock, that way his memory should return.

Re:aliens are for real

[rbanffy]

My God! It's full of trolls!

Sorry. Couldn't resist

OK then, I've not damaged *Your* system!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey ScentCone! I've not broken into your system! I've caused no damage! I did not alter anything!

Sounds like you will now have to get some expensive auditing done, as you're not going to take my word for it.

But will people really think I should foot the bill?

Re:OK then, I've not damaged *Your* system!

[ScentCone]

Don't you think it alters the landscape just a BIT when I've actually CAUGHT you breaking in? A little bit of reason needs to be applied, here. Obviously the boxes he wandered into shouldn't have been so vulnerable. But if I've got reason think you HAVE been in there, it's going to start - in real life - some activity in IT-land that probably wouldn't happen otherwise. Of course, events like this are usually a catalyst for some serious review and bolting-down of other systems that there's no reason to think he DID get into... and he shouldn't be on the hook for that, any more than the person living next door to a recent break-in vicitim can blame the neighbor's burglar for what he's just spent on an improved alarm system to keep the same thing from happening next door.

Then the rest of the world isn't very bright

[SIIHP]

Just so I'm clear, in "the rest of the world" there appear to be the choices of go to trial or not. Here there appears to be an additional choice of "take a lesser plea, for the guarantee of a lesser sentence".

Explain to me why that is "loathsome" as it's an additional choice, that is in no way mandatory, and deviates from "the rest of the world" by giving more options for a satisfactory resolution, not less.

Explain to me what is "loathsome" about having the totally voluntary option of avoiding a serious sentence by cooperation, and then explain why not having that option is better.

The only thing "loathsome" is your jingoistic assumption of the superiority of the "rest of the world" and its opinion.

Sklyarov

[muffen]

Anyone else than me who started thinking of Dmitri Sklyarov after reading this story?

Re:aliens are for real

[CopaceticOpus]

Or from MST3K: The Movie -

"I'm not an alien! Sure I'll ram my ovipositor down your throat, and lay my eggs in your chest, but I'm not an alien!"

Plea Bargains and Torture

[alexhmit01]

In the dark ages, it was decided that too many people were wrongly convicted, so the only want to punish people was if they confessed. This seems like a good idea, but the implementation was such that people were tortured to extract confessions... However, everyone punished had confessed.

Now, we make the series of laws increasing complex, so anyone can be convicted of 5-10 things, each carrying 1+ year as a sentence. Net effect, if the cops think that they have evidence that you committed a petty crime (carrying a 2-4 year sentence), but are concerned that they can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, no big deal. The prosecutor piles on 5-15 charges, so that if convicted, you'd fact 25-50 years in prison, but offers you a "deal" of 1 year in prison to "plead guilty."

Net effect? Cases never go to trial, and everyone confesses... we've traded our right to a jury trial to our ability to "negotiate" a deal with the prosecutor... The alledged perp might go to court to fight a 2-4 year sentence, but if the choice is sign for 1 year, or fight and risk 50 years... well, everyone takes the plea bargain and "gets off easy."

Re:Plea Bargains and Torture

[techno-vampire]

The prosecutor piles on 5-15 charges, so that if convicted, you'd fact 25-50 years in prison, but offers you a "deal" of 1 year in prison to "plead guilty."

This would be true if the sentences were to be served consecutively, but that almost never happens in the Real World. Multiple sentences are normally served concurrently, so that if you're found guilty of 25 different crimes, each with a 2 year term, you serve 2 years.

Be careful about one size fits all solutions

[dreamchaser]

A young relative of mine was assaulted, and a plea bargain is what saved this poor girl from having to testify in excruciating detail about what that monster did to her. It's easy to sit in an armchair and pontificate about how (fill in the blank) is the reason (fill in the blank) is so broken though isn't it?

The problem is in application and accountability and a citizenry that's mostly asleep at the wheel, not in the existence of plea bargaining per se.

Unfair treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

The sad part is that the UK is willing to extradite its own people with liitle evidence due to the stupid one sided treaty that was signed. Cleverly the US would not ratify its end of it and so the US says we want MR or Mrs X and the government here says, sure no problem would you like them gift wrapped!
It was meant to speed terror suspects to trial but so far has mainly been used for white colar crime (google: Nat West Three)

As for this guy. He hacked but he is harmless. After all there are now organised crime gangs with big money and powerfull systems waiting to hack the S**t out of banks and online systems to get rich. I think they are a much bigger threat.

Re:aliens are for real

[Iron Condor]

I read about this man several years ago and his claims to have accessed some incredible information about exotic anti gravity, free energy and aliens. What really didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, is if he had in fact done this, and accessed information on fantastic technology that is being withheld that could help us solve our energy crises for instance, he did not keep any record of his finding or any proof at all.

Before you embarrass yourself much further with that train of thought consider this: if this kind of information existed and was real, you wouldn't have read about it. You wouldn't have read about this McKinnon guy either. Neither would've anybody else. There wouldn't be any "extradition hearings" and similar nonsense.

I'd say the guy appears to have found a way to cash in on his sudden popularity. And so he milks it a little more by tacking on whatever he can to become even more popular.

I Was Strolling Through The Park One Day...

[BlueStrat]

I think the situation with Gary McKinnon is more akin to strolling through a park, minding your own business, when suddenly, you're confronted with a tactical assault team. "What the!!..what did I do!?!?" The officer in charge says, "See that patch of grass right there?" You respond: "Yes, it's just like all the other patches of grass I've been walking across in this park all afternoon!" He responds: "No it isn't! That's a Federal High-Security Zone, and you just willingly violated it! You're going to jail for 30 years, you miscreant!" You incredulously respond: "That's ridiculous! There's no signs, no warnings, nothing to distinguish it at all from all these other patches of grass that are perfectly OK to cross in this public park!" He responds: "That doesn't matter! You willingly violated it, and the law is the law! Off to federal prison with you, you terrorist!"

If I type some random URL into a browser, and it pulls up a webpage with no warnings, passwords required, or even a "Authorized Personnel Only!" notice, and it happens to be some restricted confidential government website, I guess McKinnon would gain a cellmate.

Well kiddies, I guess everyone from now on had better never typo any URLs, and you'd better check with any web site or ftp site admins first by snail-mail and get an authorization in writing first before visiting said sites...just in case they screwed up, and they actually meant that to be restricted-access only.

Cheers!

Strat

I'm sorry but you're wrong, and you're lying

[SIIHP]

"in civilised societies the judge decides the punishment without reference to the wishes of the prosecutor."

Bullshit. You're telling me the prosecutor's opinion isn't taken into consideration at all, even in cases where, say, the defendant gives the prosecutor helpful information on a more important criminal? Lie.

It's pretty clear that you know you're wrong, otherwise you wouldn't have had to lie to advance your point.