Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Hacker Loses Extradition Appeal

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the don't-get-caught dept.

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."

15 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. Ah the Uk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Ah the Uk by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Ah the Uk by G0rAk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Nothing to see here. Move along.
    3. Re:Ah the Uk by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
  2. one-way treaty by cliffski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
    1. Re:one-way treaty by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:one-way treaty by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    3. Re:one-way treaty by pzs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  3. There's still the EU by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  4. Re:Not a death penalty case by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  5. Re:Duh by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  6. Re:Duh by GauteL · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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.

  7. Re:Not a death penalty case by sunking2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Duh by GauteL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.

  9. Re:Crappy retarded cliché by phillous · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.