Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Hacker Wins Right to Extradition Hearing

Posted by samzenpus on from the just-send-him-over dept.

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."

13 of 217 comments (clear)

  1. Re:question.... by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  2. Rights? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Rights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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.)

    2. Re:Rights? by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  3. Re:Tit for tat by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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).
  4. Re:question.... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:Plea bargain by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  6. Re:Plea bargain by the_womble · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  7. extradition by cycoj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  8. Is there anything we can do to help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  9. Re:Tit for tat by cycoj · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  10. Then the rest of the world isn't very bright by SIIHP · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
  11. Plea Bargains and Torture by alexhmit01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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."