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."

35 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. Should he be praised by Scr3wFace · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is a very big difference between finding security faults, and exploiting them!

    1. Re:Should he be praised by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Governments and quite some companies disagree.

    2. Re:Should he be praised by aproposofwhat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:Should he be praised by FinchWorld · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Britain should drop this treaty immediately, and refuse any extradition request other than for terrorist crimes.

      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
    4. Re:Should he be praised by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
    5. Re:Should he be praised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:Should he be praised by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you read the linked-to article (the last one), you'll see this:

      The authorities have warned that without his co-operation and a guilty plea the case could be treated as terrorism and he could face a long jail sentence.

      They're already threatening to treat it as terrorism.

    7. Re:Should he be praised by phantomflanflinger · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dat McKinnon dude should be damn grateful he a cracker, cuz if he were a brother his ass'd be straight to Gitmo bay.

      --
      shin phantomflanflinger
    8. Re:Should he be praised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The treaty is contained in this act.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003

      The UK has handed over terorists, hackers and fraudsters, yet the US is yet to do the same, Even with known PIRA terrorists.

    9. Re:Should he be praised by clickclickdrone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >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
    10. Re:Should he be praised by Tim+C · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Should he be praised by supernova_hq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So it's only terrorism if he says he didn't do it?...

    12. Re:Should he be praised by chrb · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It's very likely there'll be some fall out regarding the recent House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Human Rights Annual Report. To quote:

      "We conclude that, given the clear differences in definition, the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture, and we recommend that the Government does not rely on such assurances in the future."

      This means that for terrorism crimes, it's very likely that extradition requests to the U.S. will have to be denied, since the U.S. carries out activities that the U.K. considers torture. And a "no-torture" guarantee is worthless, since the U.S. doesn't consider the acts as torture in the first place. At a minimum, expect this issue to be brought up in legal challenges to extradition.

    13. Re:Should he be praised by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...".

    14. Re:Should he be praised by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
  2. Re:Speaking of crackers... by religious+freak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anybody else ever wonder if this is the same guy repeating this over and over again, or if there are really that many assholes that read /. ?

    Nobody really gives a shit (I didn't really even read the above post), I just find it kind of curious.

    Are you the same dude that posts to EVERY article, or is there a whole "underground movement"?

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  3. BBC Confirms It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:BBC Confirms It by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Well, that's obviously way off base because I'm sure the extradition treaty goes both ways

      You would think so, wouldn't you? Apparently American citizens have something called 'rights', which means they cannot be extradited without the evidence against them being put before an American court. So Congress have not ratified the treaty. It only goes one way: we bend over, and get no reach-around.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:BBC Confirms It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      because I'm sure the extradition treaty goes both ways

      This gets discussed every time this story comes up: no it doesn't go both ways. The UK has asked for the extradition of people from the US on charges of murder and have been refused. When it's the other way around, but is just some nutter that guessed the Pentagon's admin passwords were password or some stupidity, the Brit is passed straight over. Also the actual treaty itself is one-sided: the US doesn't have to provide proof to have someone extradited, but the UK does. The treaty is not constitutional in either country.

      I'd whole heartedly welcome the UK as our 51st state. You want in? :)

      Am assuming this is a rhetorical question. Anyway, I don't have anything the average American, it's just the UK and US governments actions make my blood boil, as a Slashdot reader I can see I'm not alone. :)

    3. Re:BBC Confirms It by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It would be part of the US if laws could be enforced mutually. Being unilateral, it means nothing less than being a colony. When your laws trump local laws without the ones being overruled having any way to appeal, it fits quite neatly.

      Isn't that ironic?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. A disgrace by iworm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:A disgrace by langenaam · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hear, hear. I find it a disgrace that countries like UK and my own country (Netherlands) extradite their own citizens to a country with cowboy-law. The US will not extradite their own citizens; they have even promised to invade countries that hold american citizens (International Court of Justice).

    2. Re:A disgrace by 0a100b · · Score: 5, Informative

      The US have not just promised to invade The Hague, they have turned it into a law: http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm. I wonder what NATO would do if the US ever invaded the Netherlands.

  5. I propose... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Funny

    That the term "hacker" be henceforth replaced by the term "fucker".

    Yes, it may still lead to unforeseen consequences for the fucker when laymen (and women) star using the term without proper understanding of it, but isn't that exactly what the fucker community really needs?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:I propose... by religious+freak · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, at least that way we could actually say... "I'm one of the best fuckers on the planet" and it would be true.

      Screw black/white/gray, I like it!

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  6. The BBC confirms it : by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nobody intimidates the US government..

    Our TWO main powers are extradition, rendition and prohibition.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  7. Easy by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ``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.
  8. Too large to download? by omuls+are+tasty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Too large to download? by gsslay · · Score: 5, Funny

      It makes complete sense.

      It's called perspective. He could see the pictures when they were far away because that makes them much smaller. But if they were downloaded onto his own computer they would be much closer, and therefore too big for it.

      I use this same principle to cache the entire internet on a USB key that I keep on the moon.

  9. the whole story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...is something you don't have.

    1. Saying he was "just" obsessed with finding about UFOs is a thinly veiled attempt at making an unnecessary end justify the means. If you or your buddies have found a UFO, good for you, but information does not "want" to be anthropomorphised, and you can't just raid other people's stuff to satisfy your curiosity.

    2. It's unlikely anyway. I've mixed in UFO/remote viewing circles thanks to a few obsessive buddies, and while "the government's hiding something" seems to be standard rhetoric, the hobby is empty of people carefully planning cracking raids to get it. It would be counter-productive to make enemies of the people you want to be more open.

    The at-all-costs nutjob does not have the clarity of thought to do what McKinnon did, though congratulations for building the foundations for a failed insanity/naivete defence. Why don't you just give him blonde pigtails and a lollypop and tell him to say "oh wittle me, no Sir I had no idea that sweetie wasn't mine".

    3. It's probable that he did something that neither side want to put out in the open.

    4. But there's more than enough evidence for an extradition among merely what both sides agree happened.

    5. No, "hackers", finding breakable security and breaking it is not a pastime that justifies itself. When you're happy not reacting to my regularly cutting the windows and defeating the locks of you and your most vulnerable family member so I can leaving a note saying "I just wanted to see what you look like - and show you how easy it is so you can stop me from doing it again" then at least you'll be consistent.

    Everyone's personal security and privacy can be defeated eventually, including yours, and there's always someone smarter than you who can defeat it. If it hasn't happened to you already, it's not because you're an impenetrable leet haxor, it's because you're inconsequential. And if you ever become otherwise, good luck on that "Thanks for the help and implicit security advice! Look forward to more of your work" note you'll have to write to your intruder.

  10. Re:He stole brains? Over the interweb? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Funny

    So what you're saying is...

    Zombie cracker attacks US, in a post 9-11 world!

    If that's not fear-inducing, I don't know what is.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  11. Re:Crackers, Hackers, and Slackers by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  12. Blame Blair! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Unfortunately, our former PM, the worlds worst negotiator, Tony Blair went and signed a bilateral extradition treaty with the US (the one which removes the burden of providing any evidence before extraditing) When the US refused to sign their copy of the treaty he just let it ride.

    Thanks Tony, bang up job.

  13. Aspergers is not a defence by MindKata · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "an excuse for doing something"

    Not so much an excuse, its more like the way people in power need to think to maintain power. Unfortunately people who seek power over others, don't want people to stand against their point of view. Almost by definition, the ones in power (in every country) seek to have the power to dictate terms and control everyone they rule over. So any attempt to oppose their point of view, can be interpreted as wrong by them, but now they have this fear filled terror label under which they can label anything which could oppose their point of view and so can (and do) use it to stop any attempt to oppose their point of view.

    What I also find very disturbing about this case is how they are trying to use Aspergers as some kind of defense. I find it extremely insulting to Aspergers to be treated somehow inferior. Most Aspergers would leave most of the sheep like people in this world standing for their intelligence But the capacity to learn isn't the same as having learned something already. Also just because someone has the capacity to learn, doesn't mean they have used their ability to learn to the full. This hacker has shown he has not thought through the full implications of what he was said to be doing. He is very misguided to think he can just look around military computers to find UFO evidence or any evidence. However being an Asperger is not a defense. If anything it should undermine his defense. So his defense team are "clutching at straws" so to speak, to hope Aspergers can become a defense for failing to think something through.

    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.

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:Aspergers is not a defence by WibbleOnMars · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.