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

I remember this guy

[betterunixthanunix]

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

Re:I remember this guy

[Alwin Henseler]

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

Obviously not. To cause $900k worth of damage, these systems must have been running really powerful software (read: something else).

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: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.

Re:I remember this guy

[blindd0t]

$900,000 makes it sound like he may have downloaded a song or two off one or more of the servers he 'hacked'. I'm being facetious, of course. ^_^

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:I remember this guy

[MadMidnightBomber]

As far as I can tell, the $900k comes from having to employ actual network administrators instead of a bunch of faeces-flinging monkeys.

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

[zsau]

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

Re:Ah the Uk

[amliebsch]

But we've got to come down hard on people breaking in to Pentagon computers. Otherwise the WOPR is at risk!

Re:Ah the Uk

[GauteL]

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

I wish people would sometimes read other comments before replying.

The reason for Britain being named a 'lap dog' is that the extradition treaty is one-sided. The US does not have to show probable cause to get Britain to extradite people to the US, but Britain has to for it to happen the other way around.

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

[Khisanth Magus]

Not really. Regular US citizens don't really have any power anymore. We get to choose which person we want to screw us over, that is about it. Its pretty much a given fact that everyone running for office is going to be a corrupt politician who has no intention of listening to us.

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

[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..

Re:Ah the Uk

[phillous]

Oh yes, Americans are the only ones sitting in foriegn Jails on drug charges... couldn't possibly happen to anyone else... like that brit who got 6 years in Dubai for having 0.003g of cannabis on his shoe.

Re:Ah the Uk

[Thiez]

Since countries other than the UK and the US are irrelevant in this case, I assume you refer to prisons in the UK when you say 'foreign prisons'.

So tell me, how many Americans are in prison in the UK for having drugs, and how long are their sentences compared to what they would have gotten in the US?

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

[Austerity Empowers]

Doesn't the UK refuse to extradite suspects who would face the death penalty in the US? (Also, usually our most high profile cases)

The numbers may not add up, but if our government can do as it pleases based on popular opinion, any refusal to hand over death row candidates becomes high profile and public opinion turns against the Commie Europeans. Having to dumb down charges just to get the suspects (i.e. take the death penalty off the table) presses some hot buttons. Worse it creates an environment where the rich can escape the same punishment that the poor would receive. That's politics.

On the other hand if the UK government blocks extradition of an espionage suspect...we'd probably do the same. That hits government paranoids a lot closer to home, so it's in no one's interests to block it.

Re:one-way treaty

[The Dancing Panda]

Does this happen often? We don't really hear about it over here. Are there many criminals in the US that the UK wishes to have extradited?

I was always under the assumption that the people of the United States don't commit crimes worthy of extradition ;).

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

[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

[SimonGhent]

However, if plays nice and owns up to all the stuff he says he didn't do but they claim he did

Not quite true.

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2005/jul/09/weekend7.weekend2:

Gary was kept in a police station overnight. Then the Americans offered him a deal, via his British solicitor. "They said, 'If you incur the cost of the whole extradition process, be a good boy, come over here, we'll give you three or four years, rather than the whole sentence.' I said, 'OK, give me that in writing.' They said, 'Oh no, we can't do that.' So they were offering a secret trial, no right of appeal on the outcome, no comment to the newspapers, and nothing in writing. My solicitor, doing her job, advised me to take it, and when I said no, she was very, 'Ooh, they're going to come down heavy.'"

Also, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/27/internationalcrime.hacking...

In a further twist, it has emerged that a crucial file containing details of the early meetings with the US prosecutors, at which the offers were apparently made, has gone missing from the office of McKinnon's solicitor. A laptop holding details of the same meetings was stolen from the car of one of his barristers.

Re:one-way treaty

[Candid88]

"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."

There have been several people extradited both ways, very few are controversial.

I remember there was an absolutely despicable incident where the US military refused to allow a soldier to attend a British coroner's investigation about a British soldier killed in a friendly fire incident.

That incident was a complete disgrace and has undoubtedly strained US-UK relations purely to prevent some incompetent guy from looking bad, but it has little to do with the US-UK extradition treaty (due to military exemption).

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:one-way treaty

[gnick]

...Your post however does not add any value. People bitching about how a comment was rated are pathetic and makes me want to put a gun in my mouth. How can you have so little meaning in your life that you could possible even think of writing something of so little value...

Mod parent Insightful!!! =)

Re:one-way treaty

[MagdJTK]

Friendly fire cases have recently caused a lot of controversy here in the UK. Americans have killed Britons in clearly marked convoys and the US refused to extradite or even court marshal them. In one case the coroner's report was actively impeded and a video from one of the US jets was only released when The Sun leaked it.

Re:one-way treaty

[MagdJTK]

Why would US troops operating in Iraq, goto trial in the UK?Civilian court no less?

They weren't punished in the US.

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

[abigsmurf]

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.

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).

Re:There's still the EU

[UdoKeir]

more people voted conservative than Labour at the last general election

The facts would indicate otherwise (from here):
Labour 9,562,122
Conservative 8,772,598

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

[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: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

[Anonymous Coward]

compared to the sentences handed down by British courts, you are.

Nobody gets 97 years in the UK. Beside the obvious point that a person would die in jail before reaching 97 years, the number of people in the UK on a prison sentence designed to ensure that they spent the rest of their natural life in jail is (iirc) about 35. You have to have done something unbelievably sick to warrant such a sentence (see here). Where there's talk of treating him as a terrorist if he doesn't plead guilty (wtf?) and giving him a sentence stratospherically higher than he'd ever be likely to get in a British court sounds 'intolerable' to me.

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

[SimonGhent]

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.

I think not, for someone accused of (amongst other things) obtaining secrets that might have been "useful to an enemy", "causing the US military district of Washington became inoperable" and specifying that it "occurred immediately after 9/11", I don't think he'll have it easy.

He'll have to be in solitary for his own protection.

In his own words from http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2005/jul/09/weekend7.weekend2:

sitting up all night thinking about jail and about being arse-fucked. An American jail. And remember, according to them I was making Washington inoperable 'immediately after September 11'. I'm having all these visions of ... " Gary puts on a redneck prisoner voice, "'What you doing attacking our country, boy?

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:Not a death penalty case

[AK Marc]

These systems were just sitting there and he went out of his way to do harm.

No one has even alleged that he caused actual harm. The only "costs" involved are the costs to upgrade the systems once the problems were found, and the egg on the DoD's face for some nutcase in England logging onto DoD systems with default passwords. If someone knocks on your door when you aren't home, tries the handle and sees it is open, walks in, looks around, and leaves without touching anything, should that be prosecuted as if he conducted a home invasion while everyone was there and killed a few babies while he was at it? That seems to be the US government's stance, and that's what's unreasonable and makes it look like we are blaming the victim. The victim is an ass that is lying (saying misleading things with the intention of deceiving, not actual untruths) about what happened and blaming the criminal for them leaving the figurative door to sensitive military secrets unlocked.

If you put a pool in your back yard, don't fence your back yard, and some kid drowns in your pool, you will be found 100% at fault. The parents of the kid that sent them out unsupervised and untrained as to what to do around water are completely off the hook for liability. The reason? "Attractive nussiance." I would assert that the entire DoD computer system is an attractive nussiance. It seems everyone wants to know what's on there. Just like children walking past a pool want to play in it. If you have your pool public, and unguarded, the person responsible for damage to it (considering a floating child damage, as that's more a material damage than this guy did to the DoD systems) is the owner, not the child that drowns in it, nor the negligent parents of the child. With a legal standard like that, I'd say that the only criminals in this case are the DoD and US government and not the guy in England. If you are going to put a military database on the Internet, you should pick passwords that aren't "password" or blank.

Duh

[Wiarumas]

From TFA: "Prosecutors allege that McKinnon hacked into than 90 computer systems belonging to the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Department of Defense and NASA between February 2001 and March 2002, causing $900,000 worth of damage.

McKinnon has acknowledged accessing the computers, but he disputes the reported damage and said he did it because he wanted to find evidence that America was concealing the existence of aliens."

Duh. The only reason this topic may recieve negative attention is because its the United States. Truth be told, that if this was ANY country, the same thing would have happened. What did he expect? We are talking about highly classified stuff. He may have not caused as much as the claimed damage, but he DID access them. In some countries, he would be executed...

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

[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: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.

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.

Re:Duh

[G0rAk]

He committed several UK offences in the UK under both the Computer Misuse Act and the Data Protection Act. He would get a fair trial on these, I cant imagine why he wouldn't, and they do come with prison term sentences.

The truth is out there.

[Xacid]

Aliens as a defense? Why didn't I think of that?

Interview

[SimonGhent]

There's a rather good interview with Gary McKinnon on the Guardian's web site from earlier this month.

Provides quite an insight into what he did, why he says he did it and his mental state.

Wonder if he was a /. poster. Wouldn't surprise me.

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

default & anynymous ftp servers

[tinkerghost]

IIRC, most of the 'secure' systems he accessed were FTP servers set to allow anonymous access & default access w/ 'password'. The damage he did was to the ego of the military - it's OK to point out the Emperor has no clothes, but be darned sure that the general can't hear you when you comment on his missing pants. After all, he's the one with the guns.

In general, he's willing to be tried as a hacker, but the US govt is waving the terrorist flag around & that's a charge he's not willing to face. Also, the damage claim is fairly ridiculous, these were unsecured servers - anything on them was long ago compromised. Charging him for the price of cleanup that would have had to be done if a new admin had pointed out that someone had set the FTP server to anonymous is stupid.

Crappy retarded cliché

[Nicolas MONNET]

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

I see your retarded old cliché and raise you a human right: punishment should be proportional to the crime. Did he kill anyone? Did he maim anyone? Did he steal anything? No, no and no, so why should he be punished more than someone who did?

Anyway, this nonsensical BS should be rejected by the European Court of Justice. Unlike the US Supreme court, it's not stacked with crypto-fascists like Antonin Scalia.

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.

Re:Crappy retarded cliché

[gnick]

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...

I wish I could do that... I'd build a quick frame with a roof and move in my furniture and appliances. Maybe even put up a front door with no knob. As soon as somebody wandered in through my open walls, sue them for the cost of putting up walls and installing locks.

Great business model!

Re:Crappy retarded cliché

[jambox]

Anyway, this nonsensical BS should be rejected by the European Court of Justice

That's probably why the UK government folded to the yanks on this. Why p1ss off the yanks when the French are dying to do it for you?

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

[jcnnghm]

I'm tired of reading this rant. I once bid several cents per e-mail to send out thousands of e-mails a month for a government organization. Ridiculous, right? Anybody can run sendmail in a colo for $100 a month. What the actual term of the agreement doesn't say, is that the e-mails were to be sent from an application we were to develop with features unique to the organization, and the e-mail addresses were to be collected using a marketing website and software package that we were to construct, maintain, and promote. We also had to provide two dedicated T1s, four dedicated servers, a load balancer, as well as design and produce all the print marketing materials to promote the new service. All of these things were included in the contract, but we were only paid per e-mail sent. Things aren't always as they appear at first glance.

In the case of the bolt, it's not an ordinary bolt. Normal bolts are never individually tested, a single bolt from the lot is taken and destructively tested. In the case of the expensive DD bolts, they are generally one of a kind, limited production, bolts designed for one purpose. In addition, they are generally non-destructively tested, which means that they are each individually subjected to the forces that they are rated for, and then examined. This is expensive.

As far as "cost plus" goes, how else do you suggest doing it? Whenever I bid a contract I estimate cost, then add profit and that is the price. In the case of the e-mail contract I described above, I calculated the cost then decided on a fair profit. After that, I made best case, worst case, and average case estimates for e-mail volume. I ended up basing the per e-mail bid on the worst case number of messages sent. In other words, the bid price was ((cost + [slightly less than fair] profit) / worst case estimate). As it turned out, we never got close to the worst case, we were always between average and best case, so the profit was good. Had it been a "cost plus" contract, it probably would have been less expensive for the government overall, however, the risk would have been theirs, not mine (if our software was ineffective or underused, we could have potentially lost money).

Cost plus is most often used when something has to be built that is either difficult or impossible to estimate. If I were to ask you to build something that nobody has ever built before, and intended to have you sign a contract saying that you would construct it for that price, you'd probably greatly overestimate the actual cost, because you would have to make sure you don't end up too far in the red. The costs are evaluated and approved by an oversight group (like government engineers), so they can make sure project costs are really necessary. In addition, the records are audited and unnecessary cost is often disallowed. Cost plus isn't perfect, but it's less expensive in the long run then having the contractors make guesstimates then inflate them to deal with the risk and uncertainty.

In the long run, the single most disingenuous thing I've seen in government contract is the blatant racism and sexism. Females and minorities are given preferential treatment because of their race or gender. Depending on the contract, their price proposals are also evaluated differently as well, often getting a 5% discount. In other words, a $100k bid placed by a MBE will be read as $95k when compared to other bids. The process is not only unfair and discriminatory, but can result in less qualified firms winning contracts on the basis of quotas. I was told by a colleague once that a bid of theirs was rejected, although they were both the low and most responsible bidder, because the contracting agency wanted to meet their quota.

Who am I to tell you though, you've got it all figured out. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, start a company, and win some contracts. All you've got to do is demonstrate that you can do the work, and bid low.

"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:I hope he wins

[Zordak]

My hope is that this gentleman wins. If he loses, he might be looking at several years of being treated like those folks at GITMO! And that's not something to look forward to.

I see you were going for the karma boost with the U.S. bashing, but looks like it didn't pay off this time. Please try again later.

And Gitmo? Seriously? If you're going to be a U.S. hater, at least say something credible. There is some legitimate debate to be had about whether it's fair to detain enemies captured on fields of battle in a place like Gitmo without due process, but that is wholly irrelevant to somebody who is going to be extradited according to treaty and tried in the courts with all of the constitutional due process protections that a citizen has. This guy will not end up in Gitmo. He'll spend a couple of years in Club Fed after he pleads out, then he'll be deported back to England.

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?

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:Too bad

[wild_quinine]

He did the crime, so he should pay the time. I don't care if he goes to prison in the US or in the UK, but he shouldn't be free.

In the UK, he was likely to recieve six months of community service. I think that's fair. Six months of jail time, also seems reasonable.

In the USA, he is to be made an example of, and has been told to expect 60 years in prison.

That's sixty years for logging into a computer with a blank password. He's forty. That's a life sentence, meaning life. His sentence up to the point where he is eligable for parole is likely to be longer than most murderers serving their full term.

And this is compared to the sensible slap on the wrist he should be getting in his home country.

Do you guys not fucking get this or something? Hacking

An practical example: Rachid Ramda

[Nicolas MONNET]

Rachid Ramda was responsible for the series of terrorist attacks in France around 1995. Yet it took 10 fscking years to get him extradited over the channel. This guy is responsible for the death of dozens of people! And he wasn't even a subject of Her Majesty.
But when the Bush admin snaps its fingers, lapdog Brown's government is ready to comply.
So yeah, the UK is the US's bitch.

This guy is almost my hero...

[Kidro]

Read the story on CNN.com and was floored by the last sentence.

"He was caught in 2002 after some of the software used in the attacks was traced back to his girlfriend's e-mail account." (emphasis added)

A "hacker" with a girlfriend?! Damn, if he only used the argument that he had a girlfriend and therefore couldn't be a hacker, he might be done with this whole mess already.