UK Hacker Loses Extradition Appeal

the4thdimension writes "A UK man, accused of breaking into US Pentagon and NASA computers in March 2001, lost an extradition appeal that would have freed him, or at least had him tried in the UK. While the US accuses him of causing over $900,000 in computer damage, his attorney asserts that, if extradited to the US, he faces harsh penalties that are "intolerable" and '...the British government declined to prosecute him to enable the U.S. government to make an example of him.' He intends to appeal to the European courts."

Comments

Re:Not a death penalty case

[darien]

The linked story doesn't mention it, but he says he was told by US government officials that if he didn't plead guilty and agree to be extradited, he could be facing sixty years in prison.

Re:I remember this guy

[z0idberg]

IIRC the $900,000 wasnt due to actual damage he caused, it was the cost of "securing" these systems after they realised anyone with half a clue and an internet connection could compromise their machines. How they figure that is his fault rather than actually part of the cost of their network I'm not sure.

Re:Duh

[Tim C]

I were stood on the Mexico side of the border and you on the US side and I shot you, I would have committed my crime in Mexico, no? Same thing, greater distance involved.

Re:I remember this guy

[G0rAk]

Didn't he just use Microsoft's Remote Desktop to "hack into" those systems?

Yes. He in fact exploited weak passwords - most commonly "administrator" and a blank password or a password of "password".

More curiously he ran a netstat on the boxes he compromised and viewed connections from other crackers whose IPs addresses put them all over the middle east and China.

This according to the BBC interview we previously discussed.

He did not cause $900k of damages

[Nicolas MONNET]

$900k was IMO the cost of securing systems that were not secure in the first place.

You won't find a society anywhere on earth which doesn't have such laws.

Well my country doesn't extradite its own citizens.

Re:one-way treaty

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Just when has the US refused to extradite a suspect to the UK say in the last ten years?

Very recently actually. When British journalist Terry Lloyd was shot by US forces in Iraq, the US refused to cooperate or extradite any troops to face trial here. The case had to dropped entirely (just this week).

Rich.

Re:Ah the Uk

[FireStormZ]

I assume youre talking about this?

"Article 8

        Extradition Procedures and Required Documents. Article 8 establishes the procedures and describes the documents that are required to support a request for extradition. All requests for extradition shall be submitted through the diplomatic channel. Among other requirements, Article 8(3) provides that a request for the extradition of a person sought for prosecution must be supported by: (a) a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge or other competent authority; (b) a copy of the charging document, if any; and (c) for requests to the United States, such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is sought. The Treaty will not change the evidentiary burden required for extradition requests to the United States. ***However, under the new Treaty, the evidentiary requirements for extradition from the United Kingdom are lowered from a "prima facie" standard to what in practice will constitute a U.S. probable cause standard."***

The standards are the same, the UK bar was lowered to meet the US standard..