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

Ah the Uk

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK, acting like the US' fucking lapdog, again. If I were PM I'd be telling the US government where they can shove their 'special relationship' and their entirely one-sided extradition treaty. Then I'd tell them to put ACTA in the same place.

So, whaddya reckon chaps? Think Anonymous Coward could succeed Gordon Brown?

Re:Ah the Uk

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Some of us here in the States are pretty fed up with the US throwing its weight around on the world stage, also.

Re:Ah the Uk

[FireStormZ]

huh? how is honoring extradition treaties acting as a 'lap dog'?

This is not about the wot or any of the crap thats been going on for the past decade in the us, this is about a man who committed a crime and thought because the victim was across the pond his UK citizenship would keep him from actually facing the music. Please tell me how this treaty is one sided "http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/34885.htm"..

But hey you ranted about the US and the UK in a single post and thats sure to get you some 'street cred' here on /.

Re:Ah the Uk

[zsau]

Don't worry, the way things are going you'll involuntarily stop soon enough.

Re:Ah the Uk

[g0bshiTe]

US Citizens are never heard by our government, they are blind to what the people want and need. They continually make it so we can't leave our country and feel safe traveling abroad. If they would butt out of others affairs and worry more about her people the world might just be a bit better for it.

Re:Ah the Uk

[G0rAk]

We discuss this point every time Gary McKinnon's case comes up, but lets go over the problems with the UK-US fast track extradition agreement one more time:

The agreement is supposed to be reciprocal however the US have not implemented their end of it. We can not fast track the extradition of US citizens but any UK citizen can be fast tracked. All of this was introduced to "fight terrorism" but has largely been used for cases like this and the NatWest Three.

Secondly our law forbids the extradition of persons to countries where they may face inhuman or unreasonable punishment. As such all states which implement the death penalty fall under this heading. The US should fall under this heading.

There are many other reasons why the UK can rightly be labelled a lap dog unrelated to these issues, our Special Relationship with the US is largely asking how high when told to jump.

Re:Ah the Uk

[spottedkangaroo]

Not without a billion dollars. Dollars are the only votes left that mean anything here. To that end, I send spare dollars to the EFF since they're actually getting things done; things that complaining and protesting do not get done.

Re:Ah the Uk

[Anonymous Coward]

It is one-sided: if a Yank cracked British government computers the US government would not extradite them to the UK. See the synopsis from Statewatch:

"Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required.

No other EU countries would accept this US demand, either politically or constitutionally. Yet the UK government not only acquiesced, but did so taking advantage of arcane legislative powers to see the treaty signed and implemented without any parliamentary debate or scrutiny.

Guantanamo Bay, the failed extradition of Lofti Raissi and US contempt for the International Criminal Court make this decision to remove relevant UK safeguards all the more alarming"

My government is being a lap dog by signing up to this bullshit treaty in the first place. The Conservative ad campaign, back in the nineties, was right: New Labour, New Danger.

What's worse is those fucking weasels, David Blunkett, Tony Blair and the rest of the traitors in Her Majesty's Government got this through with no parliamentary discussion. They used an arcane part of the British Constitution to do, what you Americans would call, and 'end run' around the spirit of it (which is that any major change like this should be discussed in Parliament).

Sadly, I think the time to go Guy Fawkes on this bunch of pricks has passed. We should have done it in 2003, oh well, we'll have to wait until the next election when an even bigger arsehole will be voted in.

I'm not pissed off with Americans in general by the way. After all, I really enjoy posting on Slashdot (except for when it says: You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later. Arrrgh!), but frankly your government are dicks and my government are pussies. And dicks fuck pussies, right?

Re:Ah the Uk

[clickclickdrone]

>Please tell me how this treaty is one sided
Because the UK adheres to it yet the US has yet to send a single citizen to the UK despite many, many attempts?

$900,000 of damage?

[neokushan]

I wonder what the going rate of a military-certified security expert is, these days...

one-way treaty

[cliffski]

For me the big story is the one-sided nature of this treaty. We regularly extradite suspects to the USA, yet the USA refuses to do the same for people living in the USA wanted for crimes in the UK.
That's just insane, and our government are spineless scum for agreeing to it.

Re:one-way treaty

[Frosty Piss]

That's because the UK is our bitch. Come on now, you know it's true.

Re:one-way treaty

[the eric conspiracy]

"an agency"???

Give me a break. I thought the brits had a reasonable understanding of how the courts in the US work. This moron committed a quite serious crime; it is not at all unreasonable that he should suffer significant consequences.

Here is a bit of writeup on the topic in the Washington Post:

McKinnon's lawyers alleged that an American official had told him he would be forced to serve a lengthy sentence in the United States if he fought against his extradition, something they say amounted to an unlawful threat.

The five Law Lords were unanimous in deciding McKinnon had failed to prove his case.

So the brits had their chance to decide if these claims of unfair treatment were credible or not and decided NOT. So WTF is all the whining about? At the absolute highest level this was decided internally in England - the signing of the original treaty PLUS an appeals process. I don't see how this could have been more fair.

Re:one-way treaty

[pzs]

Luckily, the policy positions of the UK government do not entirely represent the UK, otherwise I'd completely agree with you.

Outside of the spineless lap-dogs in the government, we still have art, music, comedy and other culture that is very much independent of the United States (although, of course, influenced by US culture) and still worth something.

I may not be very proud of my government but I am (occasionally) proud of the citizens of the UK.

Re:one-way treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because the UK is our bitch. Come on now, you know it's true.

How is the parent "Insightful"? This was a lousy attempt at being funny at best, a troll at worst.

Re:one-way treaty

[g0bshiTe]

I agree, European Court is the only way he would get a fair trial. In the US if you commit a crime in one city, depending on the crime you have a right to be tried in another "impartial city" in order you may get a fair trial.

Re:one-way treaty

[Frosty Piss]

Before all you Brits get bent out of shape about this, just take a deep breath and look at the facts: Your government does our bidding in many areas regardless of the value to your own nation. That and the fact that while the US is slowly becoming a Police State, the UK has been one for quite some time.

Re:one-way treaty

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And I am sorry to break it to you, but in the UK there has recently been a wave of media reporting where local councils have been abusing legislation pushed through on the basis of fighting terrorism and serious crime to spy on people suspected of having a dog foul the pavement or trying to get their kids into a school when they lived outside the catchment area.

They might not be calling these people terrorists by name, but they're quite happy to use so-called anti-terror legislation to pursue them. If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck...

Re:one-way treaty

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I thought the brits had a reasonable understanding of how the courts in the US work. This moron committed a quite serious crime;

Outside of US jurisdiction. McKinnon accessed the US servers from the UK, from his home in London in fact. I remind everyone that though he was arrested in the UK, to date, no charges have ever been brought against him by the UK government. His own county does not consider his actions criminal, yet he is being extradited to the US for actions committed outside of its borders.

But you're right. This is exactly how US courts work. Underhandedly and extrajudicially. It is no accident that the US set up the camp in Guantanamo, as historically the rule of law does not have a strong foundation in America. Segregation, McCarthyism, Wiretaps, etc. The United States is not known for its strict adherence to enlightenment principles.

America emerged as a result of colonists griping about paying taxes. To their credit, the Founding Fathers did try to legitimize the whole affair by implementing a progressive democratic constitution. And to be fair, this document was hugely influential. But ultimately, America as a country was born from and lives by the Almighty Buck. Your country does have a liberal democratic streak, but the basic principles of western society are not as strong in America as they are in Europe, where events from the French Revolution to World War 2 have really solidified respect for things like the rule of law.

In short, McKinnon's extradition was a bad idea. He is being sent to a country with a poor record of judicial fairness, and for something that was not illegal in his native land. It is a sharp litmus test of the UK's current relationship with the US, which has made clear that the UK is now little more than a vassal state in a larger Anglosphere.

McKinnon had the misfortune of being born and raised in an English speaking country. If he was French, or German, or just about any other western european nationality, this would never have gotten this far. If he takes it to the european court, which probably will refuse to hear the case, I cannot see them allowing his extradition. For reasons mentioned above, these countries do tend to hold truer to more basic principles.

There's still the EU

[serviscope_minor]

Hopefully the EU court will have something else to say about this. But anyway, thanks, Blair + new labour for completely fucking up a country.

Re:There's still the EU

[serviscope_minor]

more people voted conservative than Labour at the last general election. However thanks to the boundries of each region being adjusted to favour Labour (by Labour) and our first past the post system Labour stayed in power with a majority.

You are mistaken. I believe Labour got the larger minority by 2 points.

It says something about how shit our country has become that more liberal young people want to vote for the 'right leaning' party. That said they're also voting Lib Dems but no one ever expects them to get into power (although I'd be happy with a freakish conservative/lib dem government).

I'd be happy with a hung parliament. Labour are awful. The Tories look nearly as bad, and the Lib Dems are 100% useless. This is their oppertunity to capitalise on the poor performance of the other parties, but where are they.

Not a death penalty case

[elrous0]

The "intolerable" argument seems like a stretch to me (to say the least). The guy isn't facing the death penalty and U.S. prisons (especially the minimum security ones, where this guy will probably end up) are at least as good as UK ones.

The guy's lawyers are acting like we're going to flog him and throw him in a dungeon or something.

Re:Not a death penalty case

[betterunixthanunix]

"The guy's lawyers are acting like we're going to flog him and throw him in a dungeon or something."

He gained unauthorized access to defense department computers in the months following the September 11 attacks, and he is not a US citizen. Where did we toss other people who pissed off the DoD? He has a semi-legitimate reason to be afraid.

Re:Not a death penalty case

[Anonymous Coward]

While the US legal system might want him for a fair trial, there are other organizations in the US who need not care about the law.

The moment certain people calls him an enemy combatant, all bets are off.

Re:Not a death penalty case

[sunking2]

Guess he should have thought about that a little earlier. People are responsible for their own actions. What did he think would happen? Nobody's fault but his own that he didn't think things through well enough.

Re:Not a death penalty case

[Cauchy]

What a $#&%ing whiner. He did the crime. "I was just looking for evidence of an alien conspiracy." He was man enough (or stupid enough) to do the crime, he should be man enough to face up to the consequences. He is like 40 years old or something. He isn't some teenager, wanking off in his parents basement. He did wrong, but he doesn't want to accept the consequences of his actions.

Re:Not a death penalty case

[sunking2]

Personally, I take the opposite view on this. DoD shouldn't have to. Typically the victim in a rape is not blamed, yet for some reason that logic doesn't apply here? This isn't even a case where you can claim the DoD deserved it by leading the guy on by wearing a skimpy outfit. These systems were just sitting there and he went out of his way to do harm. Not much else to say past that.

Re:Not a death penalty case

[ParanoiaBOTS]

This isn't even a case where you can claim the DoD deserved it by leading the guy on by wearing a skimpy outfit.

You are talking about a government system that should have military grade security on it. IMO any such system that uses weak passwords and default usernames IS the equivalent of "leading you on". No, actually it goes much farther than that, it would be the equivalent of being completely naked, in public, and doing everything but asking to be raped.

Re:Not a death penalty case

[KDR_11k]

The DoD should because the intruder could very well have been an agent of an enemy power that definitely won't extradite anyone.

Re:Not a death penalty case

[Artifakt]

The department of Defense exists to deal with armed enemies who have the intent to severely damage or destroy the United States. That's why its there - it is believed that such threats exist, the U. S. wants to counter them, and this is its primary tool for doing so.
      So saying the DoD shouldn't need to defend against a threat that could equally well be used by an organized enemy as part of a war, is not like blaming the victim in a rape case. It's more like saying that it's the Tiger-Hunter's own fault if he forgot to pack his ammunition. If the DoD doesn't have a mandate to take all reasonable steps to defend against attacks that can compromise the security of the U. S., then let's shut the whole military down, and save the taxes, they're not actually supposed to do anything.

Re:Not a death penalty case

[Archangel Michael]

If the Guantanomo Bay torture camps didn't exist I might be in your camp, though the issue of the extradition treaties being highly one-sided is still worth complaining about.

By some people's definition, Gitmo is Torture. So is flushing a Koran down a toilette.

I'm sorry but the guys locked up in Gitmo aren't tortured. Torture is what happened to Daniel Purl. Torture is what happened when Saddam Gassed villages. Torture is what China does to its prisoners, when they hack them for body parts.

Equating what goes on at Gitmo with what is truly heinous is a huge disservice to those that are truly tortured.

While I may not like what is going on at Gitmo, I'm not calling it torture because it isn't. I'm sick of people crying "torture" everytime someone is put behind bars. It's a cheap shot and political sophistry.

Re:Not a death penalty case

[Teun]

The man is a British subject acting in and from Britain, he should expect to be tried according to British law on British soil.

I know there is a reciprocal (but generally considered limp sided) extradition treaty between the US and Britain but we are still talking about 'crimes' committed under British jurisdiction.

And let's not forget there is a huge difference in appreciation of human rights between Western Europe and the US.

Re:Duh

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I think the sysadmins who set up a "secure military system" that could be breached by an amateur on the internet should be executed.

Re:Duh

[GauteL]

"Duh. The only reason this topic may recieve negative attention is because its the United States"

No, the reason is that the UK extradites its own citizens to a foreign country for crimes commited in the UK, when it can't be completely sure of its citizen being given a fair trial.

As it stands he is a foreigner in the US in a harsh political climate which makes it quite likely he could get convicted a terrorist even if he is just a "good old" computer criminal. At the very least he will feel forced to plea bargain for a very bad deal.

The extradition treaty is also completely one-sided, in that the US does not need to extradite its own citizens to the UK. The deal is shameful.

Re:Duh

[Wiarumas]

And you think UK citizens will give him a fair trial? He accessed American computers/property that had American data on them that were all paid for by the American taxpayers. Please, if you can tell me how any UK citizens are affected by compromised American systems, feel free to share.

I'm not a crazy right wing conservative, but I would feel safer if those who hack into my government computers would at least get more than a smack on the wrist. And yeah, I hope he doesn't get a terrorist-type punishment, but he did hack into U.S. Federal gov computers - anyone with common sense can say that there would be reprocutions.

Re:Duh

[GauteL]

"Bullpuckey. The crimes were committed in the US, against US property."

Bollocks. He was sitting in Britain using his computer. Because of this Britain should have balls enough to tell the US to sod it and try him in his home country instead of shipping him overseas to a country where he has very limited rights as a non-citizen.

Punishment to fit the crime

[carp3_noct3m]

This may bit just a bit offtopic, but what gets me is how he is being threatened with 60 years in prison. Yes what he did was illegal. Yes the charges are trumped up, as are the recovery "costs". But 60 years?!? Fsk, I personally know some lawyers that have gotten rapists down to 3 years in a minimum security facility. I dont even know where to start about how idiotic our justice system is, and the sad thing is that everyone knows it but doesnt want to do anything about it. /end rant

Re:Duh

[morgan_greywolf]

I think the sysadmins who set up a "secure military system" that could be breached by an amateur on the internet should be executed.

If they even had been setup by 'real' sysadmins. Too often companies and governments try to save money by skimping on 'non-necessary personnel' such as an IT staff.

"Consequences"

[Nicolas MONNET]

So he was violating US laws, but he wasn't there.

Guess what, I'm routinely violating Saudi laws -- I tend to enjoy a glass of red wine with my pork chops. Should I be deported?

The problem here is that the Tony Blair government sold out their countrymen, AKA "subjects", to the Bush gang.

Re:"Consequences"

[gnick]

So he was violating US laws, but he wasn't there.

Guess what, I'm routinely violating Saudi laws -- I tend to enjoy a glass of red wine with my pork chops. Should I be deported?

No. But you're really twisting the details there. If you want a glass of red wine, have one. If you want to travel a little and smoke some reefer in a legal hash bar, smoke some. But, if you mail reefer to the US or ship wine to Saudi, prepare to face the consequences. Even though you're not in the country where you're breaking the law, your actions crossed the line. He may have been in the UK at the time, but he was breaking the law in the US. [For the record, laws banning alcohol/pot bug the hell out of me, but that's beside the point.]

Sure it was a trivial effort to breach those systems. Sure the damages are grossly inflated. But that doesn't imply a green light for somebody to sit in the UK and break laws all over the world hoping that they won't have to pay the piper.

Re:Crappy retarded cliché

[phillous]

This story has been in the British press for a few days, and I find the whole thing disgusting. As mentioned elsewhere, the $900k was the cost of securing these systems after this guys just walked in with default windows passwords... The stupid thing is that the whole case is based around this guys being a fucking terrorist... OH NOES SOMEONE DID SOMETHING TO WRONG AMERICA... They are a terrorist and should be locked away forever... if he wasn't from the UK they'd probably decide to bomb his fucking hometown as well.

Slippery Slope

[Ukab the Great]

In some foreign countries, using the Internet to say something less than flattering about their religious figures or their government is considered to be an Internet crime.

If the practice of extradition for Internet crimes is allowed to continue, what safeguards will there be in place stop citizens of free countries who practice free expression on their side of the ocean from being extradited to places where they'll get their heads cut off or be sent to gulags?

Re:I remember this guy

[The Spoonman]

He faces up to 70 years if convicted on all counts and serves the maximum time consecutively.

What's funny is how you just blurt that out as if it's a reasonable amount. Why is it I'd get significantly less for raping someone? Considering he didn't actually do any "hacking", it seems to me the admins should be facing that sentence for leaving our national secrets so easily accessed by foreign nationals.

which will work out to 5-10 years in a minimum security prison with time off for good behavior

Read it again, the US government wants to make an example out of him. We're fighting terra, after all. Do you really think they'd put this much effort into extraditing him if they were going to give him the minimum sentence? Pah-leease..

And, really, if he couldn't do the time, he should not have done the crime

Ah, the siren call of the terminally clueless. I'm so glad justice can so easily be summed up for you. The rest of us with brains find it a fairly complex task.

Re:I remember this guy

[westlake]

Claiming he owes $900k for expenses they did after the intrusion (so that nobody else can do it) is absurd.
.

Rule No. 1.

When your system are penetrated you do a full forensic analysis and rebuild from there.

Rule No. 2.

There are no exceptions to Rule No. 1

Re:Crappy retarded cliché

[moxley]

This from an organization that charges $50k for a bolt (or whatever ridiculous amount is was) and spports "cost plus" contracting.

Likely, they have quite lax security, saw this hack attempt as a opportunity to hire a friend of someone to "secure" their network and then got a bill for 900K (which likely consisted of a large kickback for one or several other people who selected the contractor).

Sorry - but that it how it seems to work in the US defense sector.

Re:Crappy retarded cliché

[GameboyRMH]

Not really, but Administrator/(blank), Guest/(blank) and Administrator/admin (I think this combo is used on retail systems with Windows preinstalled), and of course the classic (Known Username)/password work frighteningly often.

Re:Crappy retarded cliché

[c6gunner]

would you give someone who did just that the same time as someone who kicked in your door and robbed you?

Yes. What you are essentially saying is that if I rape a woman who's wearing a bikini I should get a shorter jail sentence (or no sentence at all?) than if I rape a woman in a Burqa. Don't be an idiot. In western society we blame the criminal, not the victim, regardless of how "easy" they may have made the crime.