Slashdot Mirror
BBC Profiles Extradited Cracker Gary McKinnon
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC has published a very good profile of Gary McKinnon. It discusses his motives and methods as well as raising the question as to whether he is a malicious 'hacker' or whether he was simply obsessed with finding info about UFOs and should be praised for finding security faults in what should be extremely secure systems. This should provided stimulus for some interesting discussion on Slashdot especially between us Brits and our American friends following the confirmation of his extradition to the USA."
The UK, as a seperate entity from the US, no longer exists.
If US laws can be enforced on British soil, but not vice-versa, then the UK is a defacto part of the US. But here's the clinching shit in your mouth: with no representation. What's the point of a government, if the laws they pass mean nothing?
Gary McKinnon was foolish. Yet he now faces up to 70 years in jail.
What angers me even more than the absurd penalties threatened by the US courts? The supine, wimpering acquiesence of the UK governmnt who will extradite one of its own citizens without evidence being required, yet demands no such reciprocal agreement with the US.
Mr McKinnon should burn his British passport and go away from the UK to some country which still cares for its citizens.
There is also a huge difference between the intent and the application of the extradition treaty between the UK and the US - AFAIK the US still hasn't ratified that treaty, so it's fine for US courts to extradite British citizens, but not vice-versa.
The intent of the extradition treaty was to deal with serious organised crime and terrorism cases.
McKinnon comes under neither heading, nor did the NatWest employees extradited for shenanigans over Enron.
Britain should drop this treaty immediately, and refuse any extradition request other than for terrorist crimes.
Please, America, take Abu Hamza and his friends, but a guy that has Aspergers, believes in UFOs?
He's our eccentric, so if he's due a trial we'll do it here.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
Even at that, they'd just mention he "hacked" military computers and that is terrorism. Nearly everything is these days.
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
``or [...] should be praised for finding security faults in what should be extremely secure systems.''
That one is really easy. Finding said security flaws is an accomplishment, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is what you do once you find them. You get praise for actions that lead to improved security (reporting them to the vendor, fixing them, reporting them to users, etc.). You get condemnation for exploiting them for selfish goals. Same as always: do something for the common good? Praise on you. Screw someone over for your own advantage? Damnation on you.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Everything is terrrrrism if it gives our governments an excuse for doing something that would otherwise be considered unthinkable.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Especially terrorists should not be extradited to the US, because the US has a record of grave human rights violations against suspected terrorists and has been convicted of torturing prisoners.
From TFA:
As for his quest to find evidence of a UFO cover-up, Mr McKinnon has said that he found some circumstantial evidence online to back his claims, including what he said are photos with what he speculated were alien spacecraft airbrushed out of the picture. He said the photos in question were too large to download to his own computer.
So he somehow managed to SEE the photos (without any alien spacecraft on them, BTW), but wasn't able to download them? Am I the only one to whom this doesn't make sense?
How about we give it up already and just forego the use of the term hacker meaning good computer nerd?
I've been arguing that for years, especially as in my experience in the UK, a hack most certainly is not a clever piece of code; the image presented is of someone making a mess of it, much like hacking through the undergrowth with a machete.
Besides which, you should attempt to target your language at the intended audience, and on a site like BBC News that most certainly is not the 5% of the population who know about the other use of the word.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
>Even with known PIRA terrorists
But they're not terrorists, they're just good citizens fighting the oppressors. Oh, hang on, that's what all the other ones say they are too. Hmm...
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
There is also a very big difference between noticing the fault, stepping the hell away from the keyboard and thinking long and hard about how best to inform the relevant people (if at all in these ultra-paranoid, litigation-happy times), and exploiting the fault to poke around and see what information you can find.
I in no way condone the extradition or the heavy-handed way in which the US authorities appear to be conducting things, but no, he should not be praised.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Probably some kid that tries to get some attention, and thinks that he will get it, but by posting as an AC he won't ever get the infamous OMG Ponies styling of /. which I think is rather cute!
Just ignore him - he'll get tired of it or end up as cannon fodder somewhere.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
It's more that it indicates to us all that the security of the computer systems in many places are way too weak.
If they had sufficient security measures they would just have recognized that there was an attempt in just the same mood that we recognize that it rains. "OK, it rains, time to close the windows."
And if a defense organization is cracked, what does this tell us about how easy it is to crack commercial systems? Some hobbyists probably have better security!
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
So it's only terrorism if he says he didn't do it?...
Whatever else he did, he knowingly accessed restricted computers whilst America was in a state of war.
Against who, again?
Oh yeah, yeah... war against a concept. Forgot. Tell me when you "win".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
In a post criticizing language use, you should really forgo using the word "forego". It means "precede".
Actually 'forego' is an acceptable alternate spelling of 'forgo' (though you're right that forego also can be used to mean 'precede').
I guess, that what we can learn from this is that if you are going to write a post criticising a post criticising language you should check a dictionary first.
Should he have been prosecuted? Yes.
Should he have been extradited? No.
He should have been prosecuted in Britain. It's not like what he did *isn't* illegal there.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
Not exactly; as I understand it, they're saying that if he pleads guilty as part of a plea bargain they'll go easier on him. If he contests it, they'll throw the book at him.
I've never understood that aspect of the US criminal justice system; it smacks somewhat of deliberate intimidation - "make it easy on yourself, confess - or else...".
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Wow, they managed to murder innocent women and children, but no adult males? That's pretty impressive stuff.
Perhaps the US just kept them to learn the secrets of their amazingly selective bombing techniques?
Joking aside, I also find the whole US attitude to terrorism pretty hypocritical, considering they are known for having funded a few terrorist organisations when it suits their goals. They didn't give a toss about the IRA repeatedly bombing us, but they go and invade whole other countries as retribution for one single terrorist attack against them. Some crazy guy hacking a website is extradited to the US, but the murderers of innocent women, children and adult males are protected. That is truly sickening.
which is totally what she said
I've never understood that aspect of the US criminal justice system; it smacks somewhat of deliberate intimidation
Sounds to me like you've understood it exactly.
apterous.org
How is walking into your home and making myself comfortable without your permission "breaking and entering"?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
But in truth, I find it remarkable that the US government is not owning up to the fact that it also seems to be running what amounts to basically insecure systems on much of its IT infrastructure. This dude may have been a crackpot, but somehow these antics are only performed for the sake of overreaction, when the blame should also be squarely shared by those who administer these networks. As a US taxpayer, I find this last part infinitely scarier... especially because all of this saber-rattling is not likely to remedy the conditions that made it possible to do this in the first place. A recent security audit of US Gov networks gave them an 'F' if I remember (could be wrong) Z.
You have essentially hit the nail on the head.
Why admit to your own incredible flaws, when you can blame someone else?
Why would the military admit that the security of their IT systems is embarrasingly weak, when they can blame the "super hacker" McKinnon.
By making him sound more malicious and a super cracker, the military both escapes censure and makes it look like their security wasn't awful (because only a master cracker could have broken in).
If this were really happening, what would you think?
I don't think the situation is fair either. But I also don't think the guy is necessarily harmless. Just because someone is a wack-job, tin-foil hat type doesn't mean he's harmless. Most U.S. presidential assassins were wack-job, tin-foil hat types too.
He should have been prosecuted--it the UK.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
If my door is open, it isn't...
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
His defence team would do better to point out how this case is already decided in the press. The press seem to be helping to condemn him before he goes to trial, by constantly highlighting the apparent scale of what he is said to have done.
Dude, he broke into military computer systems. He admits it. I don't see what his intention has to do with it. I don't care if he was looking for lolcats. He broke into military systems, nasa systems, and he completely admits it. What's the defense? He ought to face the consequences, if it's jail_time, so be it.
You'll have that sometimes...
Dude, you're missing the point -- the intention has everything to do with it.
Legally, intention makes all the difference as to what you can be convicted of.
In the UK we have charges of Murder and Manslaughter. One of the key differences is whether you intended to do it or not.
Most other charges have similar levels of distinction: some that merely require proof that you did it; others that require proof of intent to secure a conviction.
So whether he intended to do it is very relevant -- not necessarily to whether to convict him, but certainly what to convict him of.
And my understanding is that the lesser charge, (ie the one without the requirement of intent, to which he freely admits) is not sufficient grounds for extradition, whereas the higher charge is. That's why it matters whether he meant to cause harm or not.
Dude, he broke into military computer systems. He admits it.
Some of these systems had blank Admin passwords. If I did that where I work I would be sacked for incompetence.
The real problem is that by exposing how lax the securit was he has caused the US government considerable embarrassment, for this they will make him rot in prison for a very long while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon
Also, as a British citizen I do object to an extradition treaty that only works in one direction. Ideally we should refuse all future extraditions until the US agrees to the same provisions we have, but since the US would never do that it is a moot point really. I would rather that every American criminal could not just come over here to escape prosecution since that certainly does not help anyone.
I dont read
His mental condition is a defence or mitigation that he can raise during the trial. It may help. The US legal system offers many defences and mitigations in federal criminal law.
Try to remember that he has had a couple of years to fight the extradition, which hinges on the separate decisions of several independent legal officers that there is a case to answer in U.S. Law, including at least two officers who had already concluded that the Crown Prosecution Service could not demonstrate a clear case to be answered under criminal law in the United Kingdom. Moreover, there have been at least two accountable-to-Parliament-and-their-local-electors Cabinet Ministers who have been briefed and were convinced enough that there was a case to be answered in the USA. It is unlikely that they would put their own political futures and those of their party allies on the line if the opposite was true, especially given how much information leaks out of Whitehall these days.
McKinnon has not been kidnapped, he is not the victim of extraordinary rendition, he is not going to Guantanamo, and he is not facing a trial any different than that of any other person accused and indicted by a Grand Jury in the United States. He will have a trial -- by Jury if he chooses -- and will have available the full range of defences available to any American in the same position.
He is not facing execution, he is not facing being held in Camp X-Ray like conditions, and he is unlikely to "just vanish" from the public eye in the UK or be notably "sold out" by either government this late in the electoral cycle on both sides of the Atlantic.
There are some real worries about how a less in-the-public-eye case might have unfolded. McKinnon in turn has certainly benefited from the public interest in the Natwest Three case. That there are systematic weaknesses in the current arrangement with the USA is fairly obvious now.
However, this is not being nabbed on the street in Milan and held in US custody without access to the US system of justice, as happened with Abu Omar (the Imam Rapito affair).
It is also, fortunately, not being shot seven times in the head on the Tube, a crime for which some police officers have yet to answer in court. Don't let these still senior police commanders hide behind a statute of limitations, an autrefois convict excuse following the "harsh" health and safety conviction of the police force as a whole, or a sweeping gesture towards all the other weaknesses in the British justice system.
In short, don't let the real baddies distract you by getting you to worry more about the system when it is working transparently and non-violently (like in this case) than when it uses millions of pounds of your taxes to kill someone arbitrarily and cover up and whitewash the murder.