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?...
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
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.