British Hacker Loses Review of Asperger's Defense

Barence writes "Gary McKinnon has lost the judicial review of his case, dealing a potentially fatal blow to his hopes of avoiding extradition to the US. Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Mr. Justice Wilkie dismissed the review at the Royal Courts of Justice. The review had been assembled to determine whether the diagnosis of McKinnon's Asperger's Syndrome had any bearing on the Home Office's original decision to extradite him to the US. Asperger's sufferers often exhibit obsessive behavior and social naivety, which McKinnon's lawyers have long offered as mitigation. His legal team now has 28 days to appeal the verdict, and his lawyer, Karen Todners, has indicated they may consider taking his case before the US Supreme Court. Last year we discussed a full profile of the hacker published by the BBC." Sophos's survey of 550 IT professionals found that 71% believe McKinnon should not be extradited.

Comments

FIST SPORT

[ringbarer]

Maybe people will finally realise Aspergers isn't a real condition and an excuse for the the socially inept to not make the effort.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Dishevel]

I do not think that the parent post is trollish. Just the truth. Either that or the parent suffers from the rare /.trolling syndrome which is caused by the combination of mercury from vaccines and the CO2 that is destroying 'the world.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe people will finally realise Aspergers isn't a real condition and an excuse for the the socially inept to not make the effort.

Fuck You! Fuck You! FUCK YOU!

Re:FIST SPORT

[Tanktalus]

Alexis? Is that you?

Re:FIST SPORT

[Gay for Linux]

Whoever modded him troll probably has aspbergers and looks like a troll themselves. First post is right for once; aspbergers is a made-up excuse for man children behaving like social retards

Re:FIST SPORT

[trum4n]

just like ADD and ADHD. its called being a kid.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

It may be an excuse if it wasn't for the obvious neurological difference that shows up in MRIs of people both with autism and AS.

Re:FIST SPORT

[ground.zero.612]

Maybe people will finally realise Aspergers isn't a real condition and an excuse for the the socially inept to not make the effort.

Some psychological, personality, and/or developmental disorders aren't fictitious. Maybe people will finally realize that and stop being facetious know-it-all assholes. Then again, maybe people like ringbarer are obvious trolls and my social ineptness and my lack of effort is the excuse for this misunderstanding.

Re:FIST SPORT

[blueskies]

And just like heart disease. It's called being a pussy. Don't grab at your chest pussy. Suck it up!

(obviously you've never heard of adult ADD which is somehow "just being a kid?")

Re:FIST SPORT

[blueskies]

and qEEG is showing differences in people with ADD.

Re:FIST SPORT

[blueskies]

I think the everyone missed the irony of you being unable to connect with and empathize with people with Aspergers.

i got your joke.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

You are woefully uninformed and have probably only run into those idiots that self-diagnose as having Aspergers for the reason you state. If you've ever met anyone that was professionally diagnosed with Aspergers you'd know that almost all of them do what they can to fight the disorder and act normally. I, personally, know several and unless they told you it'd be hard to tell them apart from your average geek.

In other words... I'd suggest you STFU and actually do some research before cocking off about something you obviously have no real knowledge about.

Re:FIST SPORT

[MyLongNickName]

Yup, and you can do a scan to determine if I am awake or asleep, or whether I am thinking or not. This does not, however, indicate it is some type of genetic disorder or environmental variable causing this.

The one fact that keeps rearing its head is that even after you take out other socioeconomic variables, ADD and ADHD is much more prevalent in fatherless households. There is a very high correlation. And yes, I know correlation!=causation. However, you have to make some pretty big leaps of faith to get around it. Dads have a much different parenting style and discipline style than moms. It stands to reason that this would have an impact on the outcome of the children.

And now, in the modern America, where husbands aren't really viewed as necessary (or even desired), we wonder why we have an explosion of these "disorders". Sorry... it ain't rocket science.

Re:FIST SPORT

[digitig]

Unlike Tourette's, clearly.

Re:FIST SPORT

[dontmakemethink]

Asperger's is a very real condition, however by definition it is no defense for criminal behavior. The similar condition that is severe enough to merit a diminished capacity defense is called Autism. The threshold of diminished capacity was long established in autism diagnosis before Asperger's was identified. Autism is a disease, Asperger's is a disorder.

And although we can agree on the invalidity of the legal argument, I must point out that derogatory comments about the mentally disabled is extremely lame.

Re:FIST SPORT

[infinite9]

I know you were trolling, but I need to respond. I have AS. My father has it. My grandfather had it. And my son and one of my daughters have it. Believe me, it's real. I'm nearly 40. I'm just now feeling like I'm getting a handle on social skills. I believe I'm now entering the realm of the merely poor people-skilled humans. But it's much more than a lack of people skills. I have problems experiencing any emotion except anger. Sometimes I know what I'm feeling. Sometimes I feel something specific (like jealousy or embarrassment for example) but interpret it as a generic "bad". Sometimes I can't identify it at all. And sometimes I feel nothing when something should be there. Even when I know exactly what I'm feeling, 80% of the time, I express it incorrectly. Normal people can't read me either. They think I'm angry when I'm not, or feel completely blind-sided when I am angry. Behaviors that are natural and automatic for neurotypicals are learned behaviors for me. And if I haven't learned them, I execute them wrong or not at all. I have problems with executive function meaning that it's difficult or impossible to plan and organize some things. It explains why I always scored sky-high on aptitude tests in school, but always got bad grades. My spacial relations, problem solving, design abilities, and speech/linguistics are way out there. I always impress people with it. But my memory is beyond terrible. I can remember hardware addresses of computers I used 20 years ago, but can't remember what I had for breakfast a couple days ago. I also have sensory problems, mainly with touch and hearing. I have problem filtering out background noises and focusing on specific people talking. I have no idea what they're saying. Yet my hearing tests out perfect. When it happens, it's like my wife has switched to a foreign language. My gait is visibly wrong, which is common. I also have the theory of mind problems (mind-blindness). It's sometimes nearly impossible for me to understand at all how someone else feels unless something nearly identical has happened to me. As a coping mechanism, I have a long mental list of things that I know make people feel bad. When someone expresses sadness to me because of one of these things, I fake the empathy back to them. It works most of the time. And I intend the same things for them as someone who actually feels bad for them. I really want them to feel better. But inside me, I feel mostly nothingness.

Asperger's Syndrome and other autism spectrum disorders are real. I've benefited partially from it. But for the most part it sucks. I would give anything to be normal.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Gizzmonic]

And now, in the modern America, where husbands aren't really viewed as necessary (or even desired), we wonder why we have an explosion of these "disorders". Sorry... it ain't rocket science.

What America do you live in? In the one I live in, "family values" like marriage, having children, etc are cherished. There's even public service announcements like "it takes a man to be a dad." No one, besides maybe the most radical feminists would say that fathers are "undesired." And there really aren't many single-parent households at all if you count step-parents.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe people will finally realise Aspergers isn't a real condition and an excuse for the the socially inept to not make the effort.

Careful what you wish for. When I was younger I was at my worst when I was making an effort. Imagine someone who is socially clumsy, with no ability to read when he is pushing things too far, trying to meet women. I freaked quite a few of them out, because I had no ability to understand that they weren't interested. I truly had no idea, it wasn't until a friend sat me down and said, "You're really making her uncomfortable.". Even then, I had no idea what I was doing to make them uncomfortable. They would say hi, and I thought that meant everything was great. I had no idea when people were lying, or telling the truth. I had no idea when they were laughing with me, or laughing at me, so I eventually just assumed that people were malicious all the time, rather than trust them. I have Asperger's, and I can tell you, I've put in several lifetime's worth of effort in trying to understand and read people.

Re:FIST SPORT

[MyLongNickName]

Family values are talked about. We have advertising campaigns. But it is projected that in a few years that more kids will be born out of wedlock than in (it is slightly over 40% now). This is trend is being seen in all social levels. So, Family Values are a nice political campaign slogan, but we have rejected them as a society.

If you want the #1 factor in a child's success, look to two-parent households with parents who are actively involved with their children. Forget ethnicity, forget money. They may be big factors, but parents' involvement is #1.

Re:FIST SPORT

[jd]

Asperger's Syndrome has already been established as being a defect in the mirror neurons in the brain, and it is unquestionably a form of autism (which is caused by those parts of the brain designed to filter information being malformed).

If a malformed brain is an "excuse", I'd LOVE to see ringbarer's sick notes. What the hell is real, if great big chunks of the brain being missing is fake?

Re:FIST SPORT

[jd]

First off, Asperger's Syndrome is generally recognized as being on the Autistic Spectrum, not as an independently-classified condition. Second, MRI shows the two to be tightly-coupled, that there can be no serious question that Asperger's Syndrome is merely a specific subset of Autism.

Now we've got that out the way, I strongly object to the whole mental concept of absolute diminished responsibility. It's a sliding scale, not an on/off switch, and ALL people will have some area in which some diminished responsibility will exist.

The only sane, rational, logical approach is to forget about the notion of whether a person is legally culpable because of such a defect, because it's simply not useful, but rather to approach the issue as a case of how to divide the consequences of the action between treatment for the defect and punishment for the action.

Although I can see the UK legal system someday making such a switch, the US is legally very primitive. So much so that they still think the death penalty and digital watches are pretty neat ideas. I'd argue against extradition, less on the grounds of diminished responsibility of the guy and more on the grounds of diminished responsibility on the part of the US.

Re:FIST SPORT

[jd]

Don't be normal. If you think being aspie is bad, neurotypicals are infinitely worse off. They even believe their own crud, half the time, believe it or not.

For those curious about whether they have Asperger's Syndrome, there are three simple ways to self-diagnose:

• This is a superb online test. If you score 150 or more for being Aspie and less than 100 on being neurotypical, you're aspie.
  On the other hand, Slashdot is going to primarily be of interest to aspies, so constitutes a test in its own right:
  • Do you post geeky stuff on Slashdot?
  • Do people with a UID of 4 digits or less understand your jokes?
  • Do you submit articles that turn out to be too nerdy for the Slashdot readership?
    If you have answered Y to two or more of these, you're aspie.

  Alternately, you could just look at the two "classic" symptoms:

  • If you're highly stressed, does your voice go flat rather than show any of the stereotypical signs of stress?
  • If you're highly focussed, does anything else in the universe exist to you?
    If you answered Y to either of these, you're aspie.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of losers replying in this thread about how the "disease" makes it difficult to talk to women or engage in social situations. They're giving a disease status to their socially ineptitude. In other words, there's no magic syndrome causing them to be losers; they're losers and justifying it by saying they have a syndrome.

Re:FIST SPORT

[blueskies]

Yup, and you can do a scan to determine if I am awake or asleep, or whether I am thinking or not. This does not, however, indicate it is some type of genetic disorder or environmental variable causing this.

How is this +4? The qEEG can be used as a tool to diagnose ADD. How is that a negative thing?

If we can cut down on over-prescription of ADD medication isn't this a good thing, regardless of not being able to figure out if it is a genetic disorder or environmentally caused?

I'm not sure how the fact that environmental issues such as child rearing can lead to higher chances of ADD symptoms becoming expressed has anything to do with the validity of ADD.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Gay for Linux]

As far as I can tell this guy isn't a kid. He's a 40 year old pretending to be mentally ill using the same defense that furries use to justify why they spend their days sexually suggestive anthropomorphic foxes with five nipples and then complain they can't get women.

Re:FIST SPORT

[PainKilleR-CE]

The one fact that keeps rearing its head is that even after you take out other socioeconomic variables, ADD and ADHD is much more prevalent in fatherless households. There is a very high correlation. And yes, I know correlation!=causation. However, you have to make some pretty big leaps of faith to get around it. Dads have a much different parenting style and discipline style than moms. It stands to reason that this would have an impact on the outcome of the children.

While I had a hard time believing in ADD/ADHD when I was a kid, my step-brother was diagnosed with it at an extremely young age, when he was still in a 2-parent household with an active father. I was recently diagnosed with it as an adult, having grown up in a 2-parent household until I was 9, and living with my father the remaining time (with a step-mother a couple years later).

In many ways the reason I was diagnosed so late in life is that I also had social anxiety that was a strong control on the ADHD, caused in part by the parenting style of my mother. It was only when I took steps to counter the social issues so I could live a normal life that many of the attention deficit issues became noticeable to others. I also changed jobs recently to one which requires greater organizational skills and self-monitoring of one's time, both of which I've found are nearly impossible without medication and discipline.

In most cases where we see an increase in the diagnosis of a particular disease or problem in the population, it has more to do with the increased awareness of the disease and increased screening than a major shift in society itself. Additionally, the fact that we're less likely to beat children into submission when they speak out of turn or won't sit still means we're causing fewer additional problems that simply mask the problems they already have.

Re:FIST SPORT

[budgenator]

The one fact that keeps rearing its head is that even after you take out other socioeconomic variables, ADD and ADHD is much more prevalent in fatherless households. There is a very high correlation. And yes, I know correlation!=causation. However, you have to make some pretty big leaps of faith to get around it. Dads have a much different parenting style and discipline style than moms. It stands to reason that this would have an impact on the outcome of the children.

ADD and ADHD appear to have a strong hereditary correlation, it's as highly plausable the ADD/ADHD fathers are more likely to leave their families as it is that the absence of a Father contributes to ADD/ADHD children; most likely is both facters come into play. ADD/ADHD Fathers have probably develop alternative coping skills and teaching them to their offspring would increase their functionality in society which doesn't happen if the Father is absent.

Re:FIST SPORT

[shambalagoon]

Hmm.. that seems kind of familiar. I've discovered a treatment for something. Nobody knows what I have, so I've had to do my own reseach for years, and found something that helps immensely. The symptoms are the wide range of those of chronic fatigue syndrome and aspergers seems to fit the profile as well. What it comes down to is a very unusual allergic reaction. One has a huge number of allergies, but no allergy symptoms. Clear sinuses, no sneezing, no itching. INSTEAD the reaction is neurological. Here's how it works - histamine (H1) is the source of all the usual allergy symptoms. The body has a histamine feedback mechanism - the H3 receptor, which turns down Histamine when it gets too high but also drags down dopamine, GABA, acetylcholine, noradrenaline, and serotonin with it. My theory is that in some people (CFS sufferers, maybe Aspergers, etc etc) this H3 receptor is oversensitive, and is constantly cranking down all those essential neurotransmitters, causing lots of side effects, and never giving you any sign that you have allergies, because H1 is never allowed to get too high and show symptoms.

I wanted to test my theory, and found a H3 receptor antagonist called Betahistine. I tried it. It works like magic. It's primarily used for Vertigo, but works for this. I wonder if it would help with Aspergers.

I am not a doctor, and you probably won't find a doctor who will prescribe it for this purpose. I'm throwing this out there, though, because I hope it could help someone.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah? How many "Aspergers" nerds have actually been diagnosed with an MRI?

Face it, its a fake checklist disease that Albert Einstein-wannabes heard about on Oprah. Obvious autistics are obvious.

Re:FIST SPORT

[broken_chaos]

That's what a large number of people do, yes.

But that's not what everyone does. Asperger's is a valid diagnosis, but it's a lot rarer and harder to diagnose than the number of people having it would lead you to believe. Most of the people who are validly diagnosed with it spend more time trying to get around the social awkwardness that's one of (and only one of) the symptoms associated with it, instead of trying to use it as an excuse for bad behaviour (which is what most self-diagnosed idiots do with it).

Re:FIST SPORT

[broken_chaos]

By "having it", I meant "state they have it".

Re:FIST SPORT

[Accursed]

But it is projected that in a few years that more kids will be born out of wedlock than in (it is slightly over 40% now).

That doesn't in any way invalidate what has been said. Birth out of wedlock doesn't rule out later marriages, whether to the biological father or some other male to serve as a step-father. As it stands right now, you're just getting up on the soap-box and pulling numbers out of your ass to attempt to justify your position. I won't disagree with your point about parent involvement, however.

Re:FIST SPORT

[ground.zero.612]

There are a lot of losers replying in this thread about how the "disease" makes it difficult to talk to women or engage in social situations. They're giving a disease status to their socially ineptitude. In other words, there's no magic syndrome causing them to be losers; they're losers and justifying it by saying they have a syndrome.

There are a lot of Anonymous Coward losers replying in this thread about how the disease is fake and an excuse; they're losers and justifying it by writing caustic and inflammatory statements saying it is not a real condition. Curiously I wonder how many on each side, the trolling side and the defending side, are Aspies themselves... as it is quite clear to me that just as many of these trolls have the same social ineptitude as the people they are trolling.

Re:FIST SPORT

[blueskies]

Obvious autistics are obvious

Captain Obvious is pretty obvious.

Re:FIST SPORT

[MyLongNickName]

Pulling numbers out of my ass? Here is the first link that come up in google: http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife/04/08/out.of.wedlock.births/index.html

If you only like wikipedia, here is another http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(law)

Regardless of whether future marriage occurs, the 40% rate of out of wedlock births strongly indicates that couples are not willing to make a commitment to each other before having a kid. And of the remaining 3/5, 40-50% are projected NOT to stay together. This makes it really hard for a kid to have both a father and mother role model.

Re:FIST SPORT

[blueskies]

Hey! Welcome to the ADD club! Although i hate the term because at least what i have is more Executive Function Disorder then a lack of attention.

I can focus so intently (on the wrong things) that i lose track of hours. That is obviously not a deficiency of attention.

I highly recommend the book: Delivered from Distraction (the first on is Driven to Distraction).

Roughly the stats are something like you have a 30% chance of passing ADD on to a child.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Ironica]

In fatherless households, female children reach menarche and display secondary sexual characteristics sooner, too.

Is that somehow due to discipline style also? Or is it POSSIBLE that gene expression is influenced by environmental characteristics like presence of one or both parents?

Re:FIST SPORT

[MyLongNickName]

Source please?

Re:FIST SPORT

[jd]

I see you're avoiding the issue that it can be detected and diagnosed by brain scans. I don't give a damn what person X says person Y says they have, I care that MRI results establish a neurological disorder within the mirror neurons produces the symptoms established by the psychiatric profession as Asperger's Syndrome.

What you say others say is of no significance whatsoever compared to the hard evidence. Now either address it or admit you have no point.

Re:FIST SPORT

[jd]

Frankly, does it matter what a large number of people do? A medical psychiatric diagnosis can only be given by a fully-qualified specialist on the disorder in the psychiatric profession and a neurological diagnosis can only be given by a neurologist.

If these professions concur that, say, Britain has an incidence rate of 1:60 people for AS disorders, of what possibly consequence is the opinion of the remaining 59 on what they have, or indeed of the 1 in that 60 as to what consequences they face?

Re:FIST SPORT

[Ironica]

Here's the first hit on a scholar.google.com search for menarche father absent. If you want more, you now know how to find it.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Gizzmonic]

Family values are talked about. We have advertising campaigns. But it is projected that in a few years that more kids will be born out of wedlock than in (it is slightly over 40% now). This is trend is being seen in all social levels. So, Family Values are a nice political campaign slogan, but we have rejected them as a society.

I don't think anyone anyone debates that a real, 2-parent household is the best environment for raising children. But a 2-parent household is the exception throughout history, especially for the lower classes. It is a form of wealth in its own way.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

You are inferring that ADHD is somehow caused by the absence of a father.

Wouldn't it make just as much sense to infer that ADHD might be genetic and that if a parent has ADHD then the parents are more likely to be divorced, leading to a fatherless household?

Re:FIST SPORT

[Gay for Linux]

Someone can go cry about brain scans all day, all it does is provide mental justification for sitting on their fat ass eating cheetos and playing world of warcraft. I've got zero pity and I'm going to laugh at them for what they are, fatasses eating cheetos playing world of warcraft.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who scores 172 and 46 respectively on that quiz when I first took it in 2007 and 182 and 37 respectively when I took a newer version of said quiz last month, I would not recommend self-diagnosis using the internet.

It's possible for other psychological disorders to be confused with AS.

Re:FIST SPORT

[MyLongNickName]

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

Re:FIST SPORT

[infinite9]

Don't be normal. If you think being aspie is bad, neurotypicals are infinitely worse off. They even believe their own crud, half the time, believe it or not.

To me it feels like that twilight zone episode where they removed the bandages from that beautiful woman, but the hideous doctors and nurses were revolted by how disfigured she was. There's power and logic in how we operate. But they'll never see it and accept us. And since there are more of them, they'll always rule the world and make life hell for us.

AS is about polarizing abilities. Good abilities become great. But bad abilities become dysfunction. Normal is the middle of the bell curve, and we ain't there.

The software I write are works of art. But few have the capacity to understand it. I have other abilities, like I can speak french and japanese. I also have nearly all of the lyrics from all popular music from about 1980 until about 1992 memorized. But it's all parlor tricks. Personally, I'd rather be a happy, clueless NT.

Re:FIST SPORT

[jd]

NT version 3.5 or 4? :) I wouldn't consider it parlour tricks, and you WILL be grateful for that ability when you're in your 90s. Polyglots and "classical" thinkers (those who mix arts and science) have a much higher resistance to almost all the effects of old age and are virtually bullet-proof to things like Alzheimers.

Yes, you're right that it's polarizing, but NTs actually set out TO polarize their abilities. They just do it under the pretense that they are now "specialists" or "experts" in a field. NT is an evolutionary dead-end, and those who live in their world try hard to recreate ours in order to function.

Normal is a bell-curve in terms of frequency, but an inverse-bell in terms of functionality, producing more of a saddle-shape. The topology of this class of shapes is fascinating, but the usefulness is near-zero.

Re:FIST SPORT

[jd]

Since I'm dangerously underweight (always have been), can't stand Cheetos and regard World of Warcraft as an inferior MUD that cannot hope to ever match the true supremacy of Live Roleplaying (Spirit of Adventure-style, or Trouble At Mill), I don't match any of your naive and rather superstitious stereotypes.

I probably walk more in an afternoon than you do in a week (I consider 21 miles to be a nice, gentle stroll), probably have more friends than you know people, and am unquestionably Aspie (diagnosed repeatedly by both neurologists and pdocs).

So who's crying? You, with your inferior 6-digit UID and stereotypical fantasies, or me?

Re:FIST SPORT

[Gay for Linux]

Congratulations on trying to justify your life to a stranger on the internet who doesn't care. You win nothing!

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

And now, in the modern America, where husbands aren't really viewed as necessary (or even desired), we wonder why we have an explosion of these "disorders". Sorry... it ain't rocket science.

I have 2 fathers and ADD you insensitive clod!

Re:FIST SPORT

[someSnarkyBastard]

Mod parent up, I'm also an aspie and while some sometimes its got certain advantages and may even seem suited towards certain areas of work (such as computers in my case) I would give anything to be normal. Trolls can go fuck themselves.

Re:FIST SPORT

[LionMage]

Reading comprehension failure on your part.

Parent was responding to grandparent's implicit statement that ADD and ADHD are not real disorders, and that they are "just being a kid." Parent points out that there are adults diagnosed with ADD and ADHD, which blows away the grandparent's theory that these disorders are "just part of being a kid."

Parent was not in any way suggesting that Gary McKinnon was a kid.

Then again, I suppose you would then suggest that there's no such thing as adult ADD or ADHD either, and that the people with these disorders really just want legal speed. (You know, like adderal or ritalin.)

Re:FIST SPORT

[LionMage]

And yes, I know correlation!=causation.

Indeed. Here, you're assuming the absence of a father figure is a cause for ADHD. Isn't it possible that the father (who may or may not be a carrier for the trait himself) might have trouble coping with a "problem child" and abandon the family when the child is young? I've seen this happen to friends in all walks of life -- not everyone can handle special needs kids of whatever variety, and even mild medical issues might be too much for some guys' coping skills.

Re:FIST SPORT

[someSnarkyBastard]

I have been diagnosed with Aspergers and I have allergies, specifically hay fever and to fish (hospitalized for eating tilapia of all things) so maybe you've got a placebo effect going for you or one of us is out of the norm.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

Asperger's has become a fad for those seeking to garner attention unto themselves. In the fine, hallowed tradition of disease whores everywhere, many of today's youth expertly design a disease which kills two birds with one stone by:

1. . assuming others are born normal rather than work at it, giving the self-proclaimed Aspie an excuse not to make an effort to develop social skills, and
2. . assuming they were born smart, rather than merely having had more exposure to books and computers because no one wanted to be around them.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Ost99]

The one fact that keeps rearing its head is that even after you take out other socioeconomic variables, ADD and ADHD is much more prevalent in fatherless households. There is a very high correlation. And yes, I know correlation!=causation. However, you have to make some pretty big leaps of faith to get around it. Dads have a much different parenting style and discipline style than moms. It stands to reason that this would have an impact on the outcome of the children.

It's a pretty big leap of faith to claim parenting style has that kind of effect on a child's brain.

Might it not just be that having a kid with ADHD or ADD puts a hell of a strain on a marriage?

Re:FIST SPORT

[MyLongNickName]

It's a pretty big leap of faith to claim parenting style has that kind of effect on a child's brain.

Huh? That parental style means kids are undisciplined and don't respond to authority? No leap at all.

Might it not just be that having a kid with ADHD or ADD puts a hell of a strain on a marriage?

If they don't get married BEFORE the kids are born? I think you have it backwards.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Ost99]

Might it not just be that having a kid with ADHD or ADD puts a hell of a strain on a marriage?

If they don't get married BEFORE the kids are born? I think you have it backwards.

Depends on what is actually measured.

If only kids who's been brought up in a single parent household since birth is counted in the statistics you quote my point is irrelevant.
If kids who's father has left on some point between birth and diagnosis is also counted as having been brought up in a fatherless household, my point stands (although, I should have not used the word married but relationship).

Re:FIST SPORT

[coaxial]

I know you were trolling, but I need to respond. I have AS. My father has it. My grandfather had it. And my son and one of my daughters have it.

Self diagnosed no doubt.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

Two parent families are very nice when they occur, but too many males expect to be expensive children, spending more than their share of the budget on toys and games for themselves, then spending their time at home playing with those toys and games while drinking instead of being a positive role model for their children or doing a fair share of the other jobs around the house. Fair share, of course, depends on how a couple organizes their work, if a guy really does work 80 hours a week and his wife is a "professional mom", then maybe he can come home, sit on the couch, and yell for beer, while playing games, but even that guy probably has a family that just wishes he'd go away and send money. The least a guy can do is be a role model for his kids. They can learn to laze around, drink, and play games without his modeling of such behavior. And it's a lot easier to fight for the toys with your siblings than with your old man.

Re:FIST SPORT

[metaforest]

"What America do you live in? "

Turn the question around and I ask what America you live in?
Divorce rate for first marriages is over 50%. And the US leads the world in teen pregnancy, a significant percentage of which result in a single mom because the baby daddy is often a POS.

Men raised by single mom's often don't have any significant/consistent adult male role models in their lives. This often leads to their growing up to be a "Man-child" who doesn't know how to 'be a man.'

Family values makes for a nice slogan, but the plebiscite appears to be functionally ignoring the message, while paying it lip service.

It's not just the US, though. Russia also has a very high divorce rate and a high teen mother population, though one difference is that teen mothers in Russia often get more support from their immediate families than those in the US.

Re:FIST SPORT

[metaforest]

Everything a child is exposed to affects the developing brain, for better or for worse. That's how development works. A key reason that Nature vs. Nurture will most likely never be resolved is that genetic effects and environmental effects have a huge area of overlap in child development.

Re:FIST SPORT

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone can go cry about brain scans all day, all it does is provide mental justification for sitting on their fat ass eating cheetos and playing world of warcraft. I've got zero pity and I'm going to laugh at them for what they are, fatasses eating cheetos playing world of warcraft.

Personally, I'd rather be fat and eat cheetos and play WoW than be gay and use linux...

Wrong court

[jonbryce]

It is the new English supreme court the case is going to, the one that replaces the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.

Re:Wrong court

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean *Appellate* Committee of the House of Lords. The *Judicial* Committee of the Privy Council is a different beast.

Re:Wrong court

[rutter]

I was about to say this. I suppose it is an understandable mistake as the new UK Supreme Court only opens tomorrow. Can an editor please amend this? It's just wrong. I suppose it is unintentionally funny as one main area of debate around this case is the imposition of the US authorities, and the one-sidedness of the current extradition treaty between the US and UK. There are strong feeling in the UK that the so called "Special Relationship" between the US and UK has no real benefits for the UK, and that the terms of the relationship are entirely dictated by the US. As such then mistaken assumption that the US supreme court is the highest authority in a UK case is quite fitting in this context.

Re:Wrong court

[GameMaster]

Actually, as an American, I just assumed that, since they hadn't been able to get the British legal system to refuse extradition, they were planning to attack the problem from the other end and try to get the American legal system to rescind the extradition request. Of course, I was a little confused about how they planned on getting the US court system to just skip over all the levels of appeals courts and go straight to the Supreme Court.

Re:Wrong court

[commodore64_love]

The only courts that handle international cases are the Federal courts. The lower-level state courts are forbidden by the Constitution to try such cases. So assuming his lawyers already tried to reason with the U.S. court in Virginia, and the judge did not listen, then the next step would be the Supreme Court.

By the way, I do think this guy deserves to be tried. Even if he is a little nutty, he still broke the law, and should receive a light sentence of 2 or 3 years in jail, or equivalent psychiatric treatment.

Re:Wrong court

[jd]

Since the days of Maggie Hilda Thatcher and Ronnie Ray Gun, the highest authority in the UK has always been the US Supreme Court.

Re:Wrong court

[rutter]

The question was never if he would be tired, but where. He can be tried in the UK and serve his sentence in a low security UK prison. In the UK it is likely he would receive the sentence you described, and that is what his supporters want. However, in the US they want to make an example of him, and are pursuing a sentence ranging from 10 to 60 years in a high security prison system known for their poor medical support, particularly in metal support, and that would clearly not be dangerous for someone of his disposition (suicide). In addition, it is likely he will spend significant time just waiting for a trial in the US's overburden criminal courts. All for an episode in which the only real damage was to the US government's pride.

Re:Wrong court

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It's not pride that makes the government want to give him a harsh sentence.

On the other hand, anyone interested in hacking into the US government's computers for the purpose of real spying for antagonist governments is not likely to be dissuaded by such threats (to say nothing that the government'd go for even more serious laws as spying prosecutions.)

Re:Wrong court

[Anonymous Coward]

Originally they didn't want to make an example of him, and offered a fairly short sentence (about 3 years I think). It's only after this absurd media circus ("I have Alzheimers ! No wait, I meant Aspergers! No wait, I was morally justified by the US Government's cover-up of Area 51!") that they withdrew the plea bargin.

Re:Wrong court

[commodore64_love]

>>>in the US they want to make an example of him, and are pursuing a sentence ranging from 10 to 60 years in a high security prison system
>>>

Yes that's how the U.S. legal system works. The prosecutor demands maximum punishement; the defender claims innocence and no punishment; and ultimately the guy will get something in-between. Most likey it will be 2-3 years psychiatric treatment... or a nullified sentence by the Constitution's "cruel and unusual punishment" law.

BTW I don't understand why it would be tried in the UK? Usually the suspect is deported to the scene of the break-in, which was a Virginia building.

Re:Wrong court

[Hurricane78]

Whoops. I read that an "the House of Lolcats".

But OK, let's go tho the House of the Flies, uum, Lords of the Flies, uum, House of Lords.

[Scene of cats in wigs singing and dancing in lines on tables.]

On second thought, let's not go to the House of Lords. It is a silly place.

Guantanamo

[drunken_boxer777]

It's surprising this guy didn't wake up in Guantanamo Bay one morning, considering there is a lot more evidence against him than some of the inmates there.

Re:Guantanamo

[Anonymous Coward]

He's white, silly!

Re:Guantanamo

[ultranova]

It's surprising this guy didn't wake up in Guantanamo Bay one morning, considering there is a lot more evidence against him than some of the inmates there.

Not at all, given that the whole point of Guantanamo Bay is to hold people against whom there is no evidence. He's actually guilty of something, so he can be sentenced in a court. Now, if he was innocent, but someone disliked him and wanted to get rid of him, then he would be sent to GB.

Not that that GB would be that different than the one he's currently in, mind you...

UK Law vs US Law

[Feef Lovecraft]

I can understand that the activity all happened within the US but i'm not quite so sure why there is the instance on extriditing him apart from presumably that a guy on his mom's computer managed to hack into supposedly the most secure computers at the time leaving them with egg on their face and a great deal of embarrasment.
The computer misuse act in the UK is pretty strong and would come with fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't "hack in". They had default "Administrator" accounts with no password. The hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage he's supposed to have caused was the cost of checking to see if he'd damaged anything (he hadn't) and fixing the security holes (which weren't his problem). They only noticed the intrusion because he left messages telling them!

What he did was the moral equivalent of walking through an unlocked, unguarded door and having a look round. For this he's facing 60 years in jail. This is not justice.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they'll reduce his sentence by having him work for them

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Hammer]

What he did was the moral equivalent of walking through an unlocked, unguarded door and having a look round. For this he's facing 60 years in jail. This is not justice.

And... Leaving a note to the property owner. " You left the door open and I looked around. Please remember to lock it"

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

"Unauthorized access attempts or use in excess of documented authority may subject you to a fine and/or imprisonment in accordance with Title 18, USC, Section 1030 or administrative penalties or dismissal."

So whether the door is open, closed, guarded or unguarded - if you are found within a military complex or say within the pentagon, you will be in deep googoo - and since Gary got caught - he is in deep goo goo. Unfortunately, most people who condone his actions dont learn the lesson unless the govt. makes an example of some hackers... hence his extradition. Whether big or small, a crime has to be prosecuted if you want to stop others from committing the same crime.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

What he did was the moral equivalent of walking through an unlocked, unguarded door and having a look round. For this he's facing 60 years in jail. This is not justice.

That hippy tried to make a fool out of The United States Armed Forces, and by extension, their entire nation. Nothing is more important than the good standing of the brave men who defend their nations freedom.

We go'in fry that sucker, I-tell-you-what!

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Eevee]

It's still hacking. Incredibly easy hacking, but any attempt to gain access to a system where you're not authorized is hacking. You can try to delude yourself that it isn't, but a reasonable person will conclude that it is hacking. It's like that bit from Jumanji: "You tried to cheat?" "No, I tried to drop the dice so they'd land on twelve." Oh, okay, honey. Well, that would be cheating."

As for the "having a look round" bit: I don't know what the law is like where you live, but if someone does that here, they're gonna end up in the local jail waiting to go before a judge to explain just why they're wandering around. (And I don't suspect the judge will be happy with "Oh, I was just looking around.")

18.2-92. Breaking and entering dwelling house with intent to commit other misdemeanor. If any person break and enter a dwelling house while said dwelling is occupied, either in the day or nighttime, with the intent to commit any misdemeanor except assault and battery or trespass, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. However, if the person was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of such entry, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony. (Code 1950, 18.1-88.1; 1968, c. 530; 1970, c. 381; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 486.)

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[JoeD]

And if you came home and found such a note on your table, what would your reaction be?

Would it be "My my, I should really double check to make sure the door was locked. Thanks, Anonymous Note Writer!"

Probably not. Most likely, it would be something like "Holy crap, who does that guy think he is coming into my house and poking around without permission?" followed by vague feelings of unease and paranoia.

Yes, the systems should have been secured better. But that still doesn't give someone permission to go poking around in them, any more than someone has permission to go poking around in your house if the door is unlocked.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

"18.2-92. Breaking and entering...". If the door is unlocked it is not "breaking and entering". That's the law. I don't know about the US, but if there's no malicious intent, entering without breaking is not even a crime in the UK.

Which was my point. From a moral point of view, his unauthorized access was the equivalent of entering without breaking. Why should this be treated more harshly because a computer was involved? Even if it was treated the same, he would be looking at a year in jail (maybe, at most), not 60.

A reasonable person whose head wasn't full of "oh my god evil hackers" nonsense would treat this the same as any other trespass.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

The reaction you have has nothing to do with it.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[jeffmeden]

As for the "having a look round" bit: I don't know what the law is like where you live, but if someone does that here, they're gonna end up in the local jail waiting to go before a judge to explain just why they're wandering around. (And I don't suspect the judge will be happy with "Oh, I was just looking around.")

18.2-92. Breaking and entering dwelling house with intent to commit other misdemeanor. If any person break and enter a dwelling house while said dwelling is occupied, either in the day or nighttime, with the intent to commit any misdemeanor except assault and battery or trespass, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. However, if the person was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of such entry, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony. (Code 1950, 18.1-88.1; 1968, c. 530; 1970, c. 381; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 486.)

From the text you quoted, the house has to be occupied AND you have to prove the perpetrator was intent on committing other crimes. Innocent until proven guilty?

Let's take a real life example. In the US, there are a number of apartment buildings that are built with identical precision (each more identical than the last.) If you were walking home at night and happened to turn off at the wrong building, went up to where "your apartment" would have been, and found the door unlocked, you would probably simply step inside and look around until you realized you had made a mistake. Would you be incarcerated for this? I know several people who have done this, none of which faced charges.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[StellarFury]

Yes, because they totally want a self-proclaimed Aspie working for them. Besides, haven't we already established that he's not some sort of hacking genius? He used very low-level techniques, and they only worked because there were low-level vulnerabilities.

So why on earth would a governmental organization want some socially-inept twerp with no real hacking abilities working for them? I mean, they hire those jackasses every day. Why would they hire a similar jackass, except this one tried to break into their mainframe?

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[dave420]

That's kind of the issue. They had no way to know if he'd damaged anything, and so they had to check everything out, which costs time and money. They screwed up, but he knew he shouldn't be in their systems. I don't think he should be sent to the US, but he's not innocent.

What he did was the moral equivalent of walking through an unlocked, unguarded door marked "stay the fuck out", where sensitive equipment is kept that must not be tampered with, and having a look around. He's facing jail time because even though the door was unlocked, he knew he shouldn't have been in there, and the only way to determine whether said sensitive equipment had been tampered with is by manually checking every last piece.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[pluther]

No, leaving your door unlocked is not an invitation to enter.

But we don't lock people up for 60 years for trespassing.

If the original post up there is correct, what he did was far less severe a crime than trespassing.

A fine would be appropriate here. Decades in US federal prison most certainly is not.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[L4t3r4lu5]

Actually, I'd make quick cursory check of my valuable property to make sure nothing was taken, then change the locks on my door for something I can't forget to lock (spring-bolt lock instead of deadbolt, for instance). That way the default is set to "locked" instead of "unlocked."

If the guy left a card to contact him, I'd probably send him some cash to buy a couple of beers with. After all, he could have stolen all my stuff, not left a note, and left no sign of forced entry (preventing me from claiming on my insurance).

Sometimes being a good citizen is the worst thing to do. There's a reason why you don't hear of many "good samaritans" any more.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[ground.zero.612]

What he did was the moral equivalent of walking through an unlocked, unguarded door and having a look round. For this he's facing 60 years in jail. This is not justice.

I'd say he's lucky. If I caught a person doing that I'd just shoot them; then call the authorities and say I shot an intruder.

I feel really bad for the first country we go to war with for launching cyber-attacks at the US.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Gandalf_the_Beardy]

Almost... Burglary does require mens rea but you do not have to break - you merely have to enter. Trespassing into a staff only section of a shop merely by walking behind the till and removing goods is sufficient to prove burglary - there doesn't have to be any force, merely sufficent entry. In the case of someone walking in and leaving a note on the table there would be no mens rea proving intent to burgle so you wouldnt get a s9 conviction.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

No, leaving your door unlocked is not an invitation to enter.

But we don't lock people up for 60 years for trespassing.

Where I live we shoot folks that trespass. Then we get no-billed.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[blueskies]

So when you mistype an IP address and SSH to the wrong machine you should be locked up for 10 years? You have attempted to gain access to a system where you are not authorized. Don't pull that crap that it was an accident. Don't to the crime if you can't do the time.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[tnk1]

Let's be clear. He should not have been on those systems. He *knew* he was not allowed in those systems. The fact that there was security, good, bad or non-existent is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he was "exposing" their lack of security. It doesn't matter if he supposedly did no damage.

Nothing compelled him to attack and intrude on another party's system. Nothing compelled him to do that intrusion on a system that he knew would cause the black helicopters to appear. Being stupid is not a defense in a court of law. Although he has demonstrated a certain lack of mental capacity by even trying this stunt, he's still not dumb enough to be considered retarded, although *that* should have been his diminished capacity defense.

The DoD does not have the luxury of taking this guy at his word, they *must* investigate. That costs time and money. Additionally, intruding on a military system carries the higher than average possibility that compromise could cause casualties. That means that you come down like a ton of bricks on people who do it, without regard for what they actually attacked. You want people to know that simply putting their pinky toe over the line into that network is Serious Business, despite what they decided to go after.

Don't get me wrong. People need to be fired at DoD and security needs to be improved, but that doesn't make what he did right or legal or less deserving of extradition and jail time. You don't go logging into military systems on a lark. If he was allowed to get off the hook for that, just think of the numbers of emboldened attackers who would see one less reason why they shouldn't attack a portion of the Internet that is already a huge target.

To reiterate, it doesn't matter if the morons at DoD left their door ajar, and it doesn't matter if our friendly neighborhood hacker just started writing notes all over the place about how bad their security was. You may not like having to send him to another country for trial, but he earned it. The only thing that the situation seems to lack is the sanctions and/or jail time for the people who were that bad at security. They should rot in jail alongside with McKinnon.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[evilbessie]

Ah but in the UK at least trespassing is only a civil crime, so if you don't do any damage you can't go to jail.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[_Sprocket_]

I can understand that the activity all happened within the US but i'm not quite so sure why there is the instance on extriditing him apart from presumably that a guy on his mom's computer managed to hack into supposedly the most secure computers at the time leaving them with egg on their face and a great deal of embarrasment.

First - let's not give this guy too much credit. I highly doubt he managed to access anything close to "the most secure computers at the time." What systems were involved seems to be subject to a lot of hyperbole. McKinnon's own claims differ depending on whether he's talking up his UFO hunt or fighting extradition. The US Government's case is about showing a reason to support extradition - you can expect any errors in estimation to fall against McKinnon. From what I know of the systems McKinnon vaguely describes in his UFO interviews and my experience with US Government agencies drafting damage estimates for these sorts of incidents, I'm much more willing to believe that this whole thing is blown greatly out of proportion and McKinnon's actual damage and degree of access was far less ominous than some would believe.

So why bother with extradition? It's about law and time-lines. We have to keep in mind that the Government is ultimately bureaucracy defined by law. There are pockets of competence in various given fields of expertise. But the majority of the system consists of bureaucrats that operate according to procedures defined to them largely by various laws. So while there are small groups within Government that can understand technical issues like information security, the vast majority do not. But they do understand law. And they will pursue the Law when possible.

It should be noted that there's been a lot of improvement within Government concerning information security. But that has been a very slow process that has been equally slow in building momentum. The time period of McKinnon's alleged hijinks are pretty early in this process. The methods of the Government at the time were much more weighted to legal prosecution than technical prevention.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[tsm_sf]

And if you came home and found such a note on your table, what would your reaction be?

It would be "who the fuck forgot to lock my military installation?"

Seriously, we get into this whole trespass argument all the time, but come on. If they didn't lock or guard an armory, would you be charging the guy who pointed it out?

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[dyingtolive]

But what is unauthorized access? At my company, there are legal notices right before hitting the login page telling you that if you are not authorized to access this computer, you should disconnect at that point. If you don't have that, whats to tell if you fat fingered the ip you were connecting to and happened into a radically different box than you intended? Incredibly unlikely, but I bet stranger things have happened. Additionally, if thats not a good enough argument, I could always point out that according to the computer (and by extension, the people who set it up), he must have been authorized, because he was able to log in without any exploits. :)

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Frosty Piss]

If the guy left a card to contact him, I'd probably send him some cash to buy a couple of beers with.

Most SANE people would call the police and pass on the contact info. I suspect that in "reality", so would you.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention, the cost to us to imprison him for that long...

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[digitig]

Ah but in the UK at least trespassing is usually only a civil crime

Fixed that for ya. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 criminalised some cases of trespass.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Scrameustache]

any attempt to gain access to a system where you're not authorized is hacking. You can try to delude yourself that it isn't, but a reasonable person will conclude that it is hacking.

Who are these "reasonable persons" and why are they so stupid?

18.2-92. Breaking and entering dwelling house with intent to commit other misdemeanor.

If any person break and enter a dwelling house while said dwelling is occupied, either in the day or nighttime, with the intent to commit any misdemeanor except assault and battery or trespass, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. However, if the person was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of such entry, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony.

(Code 1950, 18.1-88.1; 1968, c. 530; 1970, c. 381; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 486.)

They can't even understand the things they quote! Where do you find these reasonable idiots?

Not doing any harm and leaving a note to tell them to lock the doors is strong evidence of a lack of intent to commit a misdemeanor.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[khellendros1984]

I feel some serious sympathy for this guy, since I've done similar things (although only to personal computers, not government systems).

In college, there were a lot of people with cifs shares with public read/write turned on. It was my habit to stick a text file on the root of their c:\ and put a shortcut into their startup folders to run "notepad c:\note.txt". The note always told them about the problem, and to find a friendly geek to help them out.

I don't see a problem with the equivalent of sticking a note on the door, but really, he should've contacted them through different channels to tell them about their security problems.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Using admin account without password is the computer equivalent of having your door wide open and a written invitation in large script next to it. Not only that but US and UK have this special relation that Tony Blair was always blathering about. Very cosy friendly neighboury countries you are. And amongst friends and neighbours an open door is an invitation, and Gary acted acordingly. When he found noone at home he left a message.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[commodore64_love]

>>>we don't lock people up for 60 years for trespassing.

I'm sure the U.S. Supreme Court would strike that down as cruel-and-unusual punishment (a violation of the Constitution). That's why we have that document - to bring sanity when the president, congress, and military are sick with power.

   

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

In parts of the U.S, you can can get shot on sight for trespassing.

Maybe its an "American" thing but we don't like *anyone* trespassing at all.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[khellendros1984]

I wouldn't agree that it's a crime, though. He didn't damage anything; he just looked around. In fact, I'd look at it from the other side: if a few harmless things don't happen to scare people into making security a serious concern, then the government won't learn its lesson. "Make an example" of a few wide-open machines, and don't prosecute a tiny crime more harshly than you would a murder.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[vegiVamp]

So let me get this right, you would prefer that me, do-gooder that I am, blatantly ignore that you left your door wide open, and not warn you, so the first no-good bum that passes by can just walk in and take the huge fuckload of money that's lying around on your table without leaving a trace ?

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[TheLink]

Maybe I'm insane, but if I left my house unlocked, and nothing was stolen, nothing damaged and nothing was planted except that sort of note (no threats etc), I wouldn't bother with the police.

I'd rather take my chances with someone who left a note and didn't steal stuff than deal with the police.

After all, when my cousin's house was burgled, his wife's PDA was still around before the cops came. But after the cops left, the PDA was gone.

And when some guy's sports shop was burgled, the cops came and took some stuff and told the guy to report it as stolen to the insurance company...

Go figure.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Langolier]

He should not be considered responsible for the cost of checking those systems for damage due to unauthorized access, because those costs would be incurred whether he logged in or not. Even if a system administrator for these systems discovered the security hole, they would have to do the same amount of work, since they could not know if someone had logged in without permission or not. They would have to assume the worst. So all of the charges of "damage" against him make no sense. Just because they know that there is a security hole, and that he exploited it, it doesn't make their system any more damaged than if they just knew there was a security hole. And it is less broken than when they didn't know it had a flaw.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but the practices of third world countries aren't relevant to the UK/US.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[jd]

Referring to the Prince Philip PRESTEL e-mail case, I would point out that the defense successfully argued there that there was no trespass or breaking-and-entering.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[jd]

Kevin Mitnik spent how many years behind bars before the case even went to court? The fatalities in custody in the US is how much in excess of the norm of the rest of the Western powers?

Besides, the Supreme Court actually has no power whatsoever to actually enforce any of its decisions, which is why when it is convenient to do so, the US Government ignores it. Sanity in the US is optional, and sadly nowhere near as common as it should be.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[jd]

Except for King Arthur. You forgot that part.

(ObTrivia note for USians: A man claiming to be the reincarnation of King Arthur successfully lodged an appeal on the grounds he was saner than the Government.)

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Eevee]

Who are these "reasonable persons" and why are they so stupid?

It's a term of art in the legal world. Wikipedia is your friend: Reasonable Person

...strong evidence of a lack of intent to commit a misdemeanor.

Which is why it goes to trial. There is an independent review in the form of the judge (or jury, depending on the severity of the charge) which should take into accounts such evidence; if is is as strong as you say, then he shouldn't have to worry. (Imperfections of the judicial system are outside of my area of responsibility. Your milage may vary. Do not taunt the happy fun ball.)

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[JoeD]

What did you say your address was?

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK they normally keep the game disks behind the till. If I walked behind the till and used my laptop to make a copy of a game, that would not be burglary.

But McKinnon's intent was to copy documents proving the existence of aliens. Since such documents don't exist it cannot be claimed that he had a meaningful intent to copy anything.

I still don't get what is supposed to be so terrible about what he did.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[ultranova]

Most SANE people would call the police and pass on the contact info. I suspect that in "reality", so would you.

Therefore gaining a vengeful enemy, a reputation as a nutcase in your neighbourhood, and quite possibly marked as a troublemaking moron by the police, thus making any future dealings with them more difficult. Oh, and no benefit whatsoever.

The sane response would be to tell the other guy to not touch your door again.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[CraftyJack]

Yes, the systems should have been secured better.

Sounds like there's a layer of security that he didn't anticipate: "Trespass here, and you will be hunted down." I'd say this whole episode sends a pretty clear message.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

That sure is a funny way to spell Texas.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Ironica]

Using admin account without password is the computer equivalent of having your door slightly ajar. Rendering the contents of your server in HTML and serving them up on Port 80 is the computer equivalent of leaving your door wide open and a written invitation in large script next to it.

FTFY.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

What's with the parent being modded troll? The mods need to get their humour subroutines upgraded.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Unixnoteunuchs]

It's still hacking. Incredibly easy hacking, but any attempt to gain access to a system where you're not authorized is hacking. You can try to delude yourself that it isn't, but a reasonable person will conclude that it is hacking. It's like that bit from Jumanji: "You tried to cheat?" "No, I tried to drop the dice so they'd land on twelve." Oh, okay, honey. Well, that would be cheating."

As for the "having a look round" bit: I don't know what the law is like where you live, but if someone does that here, they're gonna end up in the local jail waiting to go before a judge to explain just why they're wandering around. (And I don't suspect the judge will be happy with "Oh, I was just looking around.")

18.2-92. Breaking and entering dwelling house with intent to commit other misdemeanor. If any person break and enter a dwelling house while said dwelling is occupied, either in the day or nighttime, with the intent to commit any misdemeanor except assault and battery or trespass, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony. However, if the person was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of such entry, he shall be guilty of a Class 2 felony. (Code 1950, 18.1-88.1; 1968, c. 530; 1970, c. 381; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1992, c. 486.)

Quoting statutes on breaking and entering is not on point. It's not a breaking if the door is open. If there is not password protection for admin login, the door is open.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Twinbee]

Are there states in the US where the trust is higher among people in general, so they wouldn't go to jail for 'a quick look'?

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

so it's completely fair that this guy should go to prison longer than many people convicted of murder? no one is arguing that he did nothing wrong. but the punishment should fit the crime. furthermore, this process of "investigation" you describe is not unlike the process of auditing that should be going on periodically in any network, there should be intrusion detection systems in place, there should be pen testing going on periodically to check for default passwords etc. again, the lack of this does not excuse his behavior, he broke laws and frankly it doesn't even concern me greatly that he's being extradited. what does concern me is that he's facing life in prison for what sounds to be nothing more than the equivalent of tresspassing. some people give the analogy dealing with a house whose door is unlocked. I think this is fitting, but it's also important to note that it's not breaking and entering unless you actually have to break in. simply walking through an unlocked door is tresspassing, which is a comparatively minor offense.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Snuhwolf]

Lets just cutto the chase, shall we? You claim: " Being stupid is not a defense in a court of law. Although he has demonstrated a certain lack of mental capacity by even trying this stunt, he's still not dumb enough to be considered retarded, although *that* should have been his diminished capacity defense." I disagree. For you to understand *why* he left the equivalent of virtual post-it note saying he'd looked around a bit, you'd have to understand how Aspergers patients interact with normal people. I've dealt with several on usenet and they are absolutely klewless rgarding whats proper behavior and what isn't. This guys laywer is claiming his clients Apergers Syndrome is to blame. I agree. Why? Because he was probably hacker #3833923 to break in to NASA. He just happened to be dumb and honest enough to give NASA's dopey sysadmins a friendly heads up. So of course, honesty is rewarded with the hose. Brilliant.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Anonymous Coward]

gah, random reply to undo accidental mod

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[LingNoi]

Really? Then why don't you try walking into the US army base they have in the UK and see what happens?

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[m50d]

Read your own quote. Going in an unlocked door to take a look around is not "Breaking and entering dwelling house with intent to commit other misdemeanor."

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[tnk1]

I would prefer you, do-gooder that you purport to be, not intrude on my system to begin with. I didn't ask you to intrude on my host and I clearly don't want you there.

One of the security options I have in place is to reward your lack of concern for my wishes with a long jail sentence in a Federal Penitentiary. Are you stating that because part of my security regime is faulty, that I should then waive the penalty portion of the security policy?

If security was going to be perfect, laws for jail sentences would be pointless, we'd just install that perfect security. Jail is there to deter you from taking advantage of the inevitable security holes that will crop up from time to time. If the deterrent is not going to be used, then it ceases to deter, does it not?

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[tnk1]

Bernie Madoff went to jail for longer than this guy might, and he didn't kill anyone, all he did was steal their money.

Many people go to jail longer than murderers do for various reasons.

I imagine this guy will get a 20 year sentence and then be freed on parole in 5 years or less. He may not even have to spend any time in jail. A murderer would rot in jail for a good 10, 15 or 20 years or even for the rest of his life for murder.

This isn't any old system he was looking at, it was a miliary system. That's not hacking into AOL or something.

Hhe was also looking for *top-secret* materials that he believed existed. He wasn't going in to deface the DoD website or something. The only thing that makes that concept any more palatable is that he was looking for tin-foil hat conspiracy theory shit that probably doesn't even exist. But he truly believed that he was going to enter a top-secret area and no doubt if he had gained entry, he would have perused state secrets that may or may not have had anything to do with what he was looking for.

As for the breaking and entering/trespassing thing, I think that you are oversimplifying the situation. But even if you weren't, the fact that this was a military system he was breaking into would be a special circumstance, just like trespassing on a military base would be, even if you didn't need to break down the door to get in.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[budgenator]

The Glasgow-born systems administrator, who attended Highgate Wood Secondary School in north London, is accused of hacking into 97 United States military and NASA computers in 2001 and 2002, using the name 'Solo'. The computer networks he is accused of hacking include networks owned by NASA, the US Army, US Navy, Department of Defense, and the US Air Force.

The US authorities claim he deleted critical files from operating systems, which shut down the US Armyâ(TM)s Military District of Washington network of 2,000 computers for 24 hours, as well as deleting US Navy Weapons logs, rendering a naval base's network of 300 computers inoperable after the September 11th terrorist attacks. They claim the cost of tracking and correcting the problems he caused was $700,000. Gary McKinnon

Seems to be a difference of opinion on some of your points.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[tnk1]

No one is convicting him of leaving sticky notes. That's merely how he got caught. All his "diminished capacity" caused him to do is get caught.

You know, serial killers often feel compelled to leave clues around, even good clues that get them caught. Psychiatrists will tell you that they feel compelled to do so for various reasons. Does that mean that these people didn't kill someone, or even that they had a change of heart? Not at all.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[budgenator]

depends on if he was guarding the open door from outside until the cops arrive or was inside the arms vault playing with the machine guns.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Draek]

And if you came home and found such a note on your table, what would your reaction be? Would it be "My my, I should really double check to make sure the door was locked. Thanks, Anonymous Note Writer!"

That once happened with my neighbor, after my mom accidentally left her keys on the door. Her first reaction after seeing her note was to go over to the neighbor and thank her, not to call the cops on her.

Which is what I think any *sane* person would do.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[commodore64_love]

>>>the Supreme Court actually has no power whatsoever to actually enforce any of its decisions

Non-issue. A President hasn't ignored the court since the 1860s, and if a modern-day president tried to do that, he'd likely get impeached and tried by the Congress for abuse-of-power.

>>>Kevin Mitnik spent how many years behind bars before the case even went to court?

3.

He then spent an additional 1.5 years in jail, because he was sentenced to a five-year punishment with early release. I'm sorry. Am I supposed to think some injustice was performed here, because I'm not seeing it? All I see is as man who commited a hacking crime and was punished as he deserved to be punished.

Also it's not as if he was just some innocent citizen picked off the street and detained. He was a serial criminal who had been imprisoned twice before, and it's only natural for a Judge to deny bail in such cases.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[westlake]

Using admin account without password is the computer equivalent of having your door wide open and a written invitation in large script next to it.

Not as a matter of law.

Not in the opinion of the federal prosecutor or the federal judge.

 

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[vegiVamp]

You're not really replying to the question I asked, but I'll take your answer as a 'yes'. Enjoy your soon to be gone huge fuckload of money.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Draek]

If he was allowed to get off the hook for that, just think of the numbers of emboldened attackers who would see one less reason why they shouldn't attack a portion of the Internet that is already a huge target.

You really think it'd make a difference, don't you? the big problem for US military system aren't random hackers living in countries the US has treaties with, its people working for foreign governments such as China or North Korea, people with vastly more resources and whose government won't give up and extradite without putting up a serious fight.

But hey! continue fighting the good fight against common citizens, yours or otherwise, the longer you spend at this pathetic circus, the longer hostile nations will have to steal your precious secrets and make some *real* damage to your country. And given how annoying you've become these past few years, I'll be glad to see that happen.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[westlake]

If the guy left a card to contact him, I'd probably send him some cash to buy a couple of beers with. After all, he could have stolen all my stuff, not left a note, and left no sign of forced entry

My Dad greeted trespassers on his farm with a Remington 12 gauge and a load of buckshot.

The unwelcome mat.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Jarik_Tentsu]

In The Age's article, they referred to him as a 'super hacker'. I guess that sounds better than "A guy who logged into computers he wasn't allowed to using default passwords".

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[coaxial]

What he did was the moral equivalent of walking through an unlocked, unguarded door and having a look round. For this he's facing 60 years in jail. This is not justice.

And that still be breaking and entering, and you would still go to jail for a long time. My roommate accidently left the door wide open yesterday. If I found someone in my apartment, you're damn right I'd call the cops, and maybe even punch them. And you know what? I'd be in the right.

If it's not yours, you have no right to do anything to it. It's just that simple.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[papershark]

I have tried to have no bias in my comment, but if you detect it... I am English if they help contextualise it.

1. That the law was broken in the UK, and US should bring the complaint to the British authorities. If they do not find the resolve they wish through authorities than, and only then should they invoke any extradition agreement.

2. That is Britain or any country does not like the terms of an agreement, then they should have not entered into it. If (as in this case) there is a massive disparity in the in the guilty term, then we (The English) should have pushed for a clues cover what the British define as cruel or unusual or extreme... such as the death penalty, or 60 years.

3. All both UK and USA have a sense of honour and pride that has been damaged in this... Embarrassment on the part of the USA that needs to make out that some who tried the password '12345' (or whatever) is crafty hacker (The reality was a craft-less system). The UK that needs to show it's not America's bitch. Both have something to gain in dragging this out for a bit.

4. I have no doubt that the American court will recognise such things as 'compulsive behaviour', reduced responsibility. I think that American court has to recognise circumstantial evidence, and other evidence from a partner as being a fundamental part of any extradition agreement. I personally would like to Americans better manage that.

5. I find it hard to understand why we see 'stupidity' as mitigating on the part of the Hacker and damning on the part of the dipshits that set up a swiss-cheese of a system for the Americans. Sure I believe that the hacker broke the law and should get a fine (that is balanced to personal circumstance), and maybe a few months time and record. But he was not responsible for the security of system, and not negligent of that system, (and he did not damage the system, but i reconise the endless damage to organisations assurance and dependence on it) and it is my opinion the negligent party (who has not broken law, but a contract to supply a 'secure' system) who is most responsible for the cost (in terms of embarrassment) and the cost of audit, and the cost of locking an open door.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[Mr. Slippery]

any attempt to gain access to a system where you're not authorized is hacking

Nonsense. The way that you determine if you're authorized to access a system is to attempt to gain access via the normal means.

Am I authorized to enter that store? Let me see if the front door is open.

Am I authorized to view the shares on that PC? Let me try to mount them (or whatever the proper term is in Windows-land).

As for the "having a look round" bit: I don't know what the law is like where you live, but if someone does that here, they're gonna end up in the local jail waiting to go before a judge to explain just why they're wandering around.

They may be arrested, but if the law you cited is the only one applicable, they will be freed with no charges pressed since they did not intend to commit any misdemeanor. (Indeed, if the law you cite is the applicable one, there'd be no case if the house wasn't occupied...)

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[westlake]

The unwelcome mat.

In this August heat, I remember an arson summer of barn burnings.

In late fall, deer hunting season, working the orchards became dangerous. That couldn't go on, and so, like his neighbors he closed the land.

The exhibitionist leaves a note. The extortionist. The psychopath. It is madness to play by their rules.
 

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[moosesocks]

Ah but in England at least trespassing is usually only a civil crime

Fixed that for ya. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 criminalised some cases of trespass.

Fixed that for you.

Don't generalize England to the entire UK. There are virtually no trespassing laws in Scotland.

This concept can be fairly disarming to some (particularly Americans such as myself), although it seems to have worked out just fine in practice. The notion that it's okay to take somebody's life for trespassing is one of my least favorite parts of American culture -- as a society, we seriously need to chill out.

Re:UK Law vs US Law

[digitig]

Ah but in England at least trespassing is usually only a civil crime

Fixed that for ya. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 criminalised some cases of trespass.

Fixed that for you.

Don't generalize England to the entire UK.

I didn't make any such generalisation. I was fully aware of the different situation in Scotland (it may well be different again in Northern Ireland -- I don't know), so what I wrote was carefully phrased so avoid any such generalisation. Read it again.

Extradition Act 2003

[expat.iain]

What is really pissing the British off is that the American government is trying to extradite McKinnon using a law that was passed under the shadow of 9/11 for the purposes of anti-terrorism.

Granted, McKinnon was foolish to enter the US government computers, although perhaps he should be given a consultant's fee for highlighting such lax security. If they're going to prosecute him for being an idiot, then certainly they could look closer to home.

And the tactics employed by the American Justice Department have been more than questionable under various EU laws, let alone the English legal system.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment is to see the politicians rolling over for the American government instead of standing up for their own citizens.

Did McKinnon break into the systems? Yes, and he has admitted such. Surely as a British citizen having commited a crime in England he should be tried under English law.

Iain

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[morgan_greywolf]

I strongly disagree. If McKinnon admittedly broke into U.S. government systems, on U.S. soil, then the entire act occurred in the United States, making McKinnon subject to U.S. law and court jurisdiction. If the reverse had been true and McKinnon were in the United States breaking into MI5 computers, you better believe that the Crown would be looking to extradite him to the U.K..

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Drakkenmensch]

Did McKinnon break into the systems? Yes, and he has admitted such. Surely as a British citizen having commited a crime in England he should be tried under English law.

Bad idea. This would set a precedent that all cyber crimes are to be tried under local law, thus hackers originating from countries that don't give a damn about computer crimes against the united states would have a blank legal check to keep on attacking the military networks.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

Here here, also a few more points not mentioned;

1) The view is also that the accord for extradition passed in light of 9/11 hysteria is unbalanced. For extradition from the US at the behest of UK government the UK would have to provide "proof" of a transgression in a US court of law, whereas for an extradition from the UK to the US one would need minor "evidence" sans a court hearing.

2) McKinnon is not arguing that he didn't break the law, just that he should be tried here in the UK.

One wonders why Allen Stanford hasn't been extradited to the UK to face some music here.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Bakkster]

It should be both, shouldn't it? You're hacking from your own jurisdiction, as well as trespassing on property in another jurisdiction.

But, if a country doesn't care about prosecuting hackers targeting American systems, we probably don't have an extradition treaty with them either. In that case it becomes something for our diplomats to duke out.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

That only works when the laws of the two countries are sufficiently similar. What if he had done something that was illegal in the USA, but was legal in UK? And what about the sentences? It's possible, even likely, that breaking into a computer system has very different punishments in UK and USA, so according to which one should he be sentenced?

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Alioth]

His case quite clearly met the requirements for extradition - even in Britain, what he did carries a potential jail sentence of more than one year.

If I were in his shoes, I'd have been on my way to Venezuela within minutes of getting discovered. Even that country has to be better than US federal prison.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[ceebee]

Funnily enough, the self-same question was asked here; but I really don't see the US agreeing to send Stanford over to a little ittie bittie country like England when they have so many high profile victims in the US already.

>>One wonders why Allen Stanford hasn't been extradited to the UK to face some music here.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Hognoxious]

If the reverse had been true and McKinnon were in the United States breaking into MI5 computers, you better believe that the Crown would be looking to extradite him to the U.K.

The constitution makes it all but impossible to extradite someone from the US, since "probable cause" is required and interpreted very strictly[1]. Numerous members of the IRA took advantage of this.

[1] effectively proof beyond reasonable doubt, which you can't get without a trial.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Hognoxious]

The prosecutor said he was going to fry him. That alone is grounds for refusing extradition.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea, Cos the US military will then have an incentive to proactively protect it's systems. Instead of just randomly lashing out at the softest target they can find. cowardly fucks.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[StellarFury]

Uh, who gives a damn? He was hacking into U.S. computers. He should be punished under U.S. law. Is anyone in the U.K. a direct victim of his crime? No. Is the U.S. government? Yes. Thus he answers to the U.S. legal system. End of story.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[ground.zero.612]

That only works when the laws of the two countries are sufficiently similar. What if he had done something that was illegal in the USA, but was legal in UK? And what about the sentences? It's possible, even likely, that breaking into a computer system has very different punishments in UK and USA, so according to which one should he be sentenced?

If hacking your supposed Allies military systems is legal, or even ethical, please don't be surprised at the commencement of local bombing raids by the hands of your "Allies."

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[History's Coming To]

Like the guys in Guantanamo who are accused of crimes against the US who are subject to US law....no....hang on.....

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Dr. Impossible]

I'm more concerned about the possibility that he'll be raped and tortured in prison. Unless the US can absolutely guarantee that it won't happen, extraditing him should be out of the question.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

Except when US soldiers are guilty of murdering British journalists, they're not allowed to be punished under British law. Can't have it both ways mate.

Frankly, yours and your countrymen's attitude toward other sovereign nations -- namely that the US is allowed to stomp around the world, murdering and pillaging with no reperecussions -- but if some idiot guesses that your Windows systems have default Administrator accounts with no passwords, then they should be made an example of, possibly facing death by electrocution or 70 years in jail, is disgusting.

You wonder why the rest of the world hates your country? Re-read your own post, the reason's right there.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Entropy2016]

And you know that this "fry" was spoken of literally as opposed to being a metaphor ... how?

1) As problematic as the American justice system can sometimes be, we (thankfully) don't have a habit of frying people on giant skillets. So we can rule out death by frying pan.
2) Despite the electric chair technically being an option in a few states, is almost never used. The prisoner would almost have to request it. Lethal injection is the preference.
3) A common meaning of "fry" could be that he plans to give an especially difficult series of questions during the trial. This kind of goes hand-in-hand with any court proceeding, otherwise your prosecutor is incompetent.
4) While America's laws may be harsher, their laws still don't allow execution for this sort of crime. So... knowing that his life is not in jepordy, why would you believe that this "frying" would be means to avoid extradition?

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Shin-LaC]

If one party is in the United States, and the other party is in the United Kingdom, how can you say that "the entire act occurred in the United States"? It'd make as much sense to say that the entire act occurred in the United Kingdom.

Tell you what, let's split the difference and say that the act occurred midway between the two countries, right in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. The "entire act" occurred in international waters, so neither country has any jurisdiction to prosecute him!

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[sconeu]

Granted, McKinnon was foolish to enter the US government computers, although perhaps he should be given a consultant's fee for highlighting such lax security

So I'll just break into your house, look around for evidence of UFO's and sned you a bill for the "consultant's fee for highlighting such lax security" on your home.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[vegiVamp]

The US government is a victim of the stupidity of their systems administrators. Had he not left a note, they would eventually have been victims of random idiots who either fuck up their systems or sell whatever they find to the highest bidder.

He may have wandered in unannounced, but he did them a damn good favour. The subsequent cost of auditing all the systems, is money that they should have spent on audits anyway.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Alinabi]

Nope. The US government is free to sue him in the UK. They have a legal system there too. Criticizing the Chinese government might be illegal in China, but you would not want the US extraditing you to China to face prosecution fro that now, would you? Why should this guy be treated differently.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Atrox666]

The US is a CRIMINAL STATE. It's one of the most sleazy and underhanded countries on this planet. It routinely violates its own agreements and constitution. I think the defence team should have fought on the grounds that a foreigner under terrorism laws is unlikely to get a fair trial and may be illegally tortured. They have no moral right to impose any "justice" on anyone until they have dealt with their own bullshit. "Fuck the USA, Fuck the USA, U-S-A" -The Exploited

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[shutdown -p now]

Uh, who gives a damn? He was hacking into U.S. computers. He should be punished under U.S. law. Is anyone in the U.K. a direct victim of his crime? No. Is the U.S. government? Yes. Thus he answers to the U.S. legal system. End of story.

Contrary to the expectations of some people, the "rest of the world" isn't (all) American colonies. They are sovereign countries with their own laws, that may well disagree with American ones. And in some cases the laws themselves punish the same things, but the punishments are very different in severity.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[cowbutt]

I think there's good justification to say the alleged crime occurred in the US.

Let's try a little thought experiment. If I stand at my country's border and swing my fists in the air, no crime is committed. If I swing my fists in the air and hit you whilst you're also in the same country, a crime of assault clearly occurs within my country. If, however, my fists hit you whilst you're stood in a neighbouring country, then if that neighbouring country has a crime of assault, then it has occurred there. If you were not stood there, no crime would have occurred, therefore, the location of the victim, rather than the perpetrator must be the defining characteristic.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like how the Americans tried all insurgents captured in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the countries of their respective crime and capture?

You mean like how the Americans allowed the extradition of IRA terrorists to the country they committing and aiding terrorism against?

No. Be honest here. American wants it's own damn way, with absolutely no reciprocation.

This is a show case - McKinnon is gonna get strung up and sent to an ass-raping prison just to lessen the shame of your pitiful national security. If this goes ahead, I'll be expecting my government to demand similar 'favours' in future cases.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

Define hacking - McKinnon read a few books from his local library and managed to break into apparently heavily secured military computers of the most powerful country in the world. Did he really have to break in? Or did he take advantage of massive security holes that allowed him to walk in?

I know the laws are different in the states - but in Britain (Scotland at least), walking into an unsecured house, where unsecured means you can gain entry without causing any criminal damage, and doing nothing else than looking around (not opening or lifting things etc.) isn't actually a crime. When someone breaks into a house and steals things, its criminal damage and theft he's charged with, not breaking and entering.

Apply that definition how you will, but if managed to gain access without causing damage and didn't deprive you of any possessions - he didn't break in :) at least according to our laws.

Threaten violence all you like btw - as inconsequential as we may seem to you, your government seems to hate going to war without us. Maybe its because we're the only friends you've got left.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

You might think it's that simple, but it's not. You do realize that in some countries it is illegal to criticize the government? So, if someone happens to write a disparaging comment about some dictator in a YouTube video, do you think that person should be extradited to be sentenced in that country?

Also, I don't know about other countries, but where I live, we have a specific clause in the extradition laws that state that people will not be extradited if there is good reason to suspect "unjust" punishment. It probably wouldn't apply in a case like this (unless the hacker was threatened with something like 50 years in prison or a death penalty), but there have been numerous cases where we have not extradited people for this clause. (Death penalty in particular is something that (as far as I know) always stops the extradition, no matter what kind of crimes the person is accused of).

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[StellarFury]

Whoa whoa whoa. Way to read your own America-hatred into my post.

What I said in NO WAY implies that I want it both ways. When Americans commit crimes in other countries, they should be dealt with under the presiding legal system.

Of course, there should be allowances for crimes of ignorance, where the legal code is confusing to tourists or whatever, and those allowances should be for both sides.

We're not talking about a crime of ignorance. Hacking into a government mainframe is universally a serious crime. Not like murder, certainly. Your murderers should be charged under UK law. I agree.

Maybe, though, you might want to check your reading comprehension before you set up those straw men. It makes you look really stupid.

P.S. Also, he's not going to be tried in Texas. When the prosecutor says he wants the dude to "fry," he means "seek the maximum sentence," which I'm doubting is death. If it is, then you're justified, but I really doubt that he'd get the death sentence.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad idea. This would set a precedent that all cyber crimes are to be tried under local law, thus hackers originating from countries that don't give a damn about computer crimes against the united states would have a blank legal check to keep on attacking the military networks.

Why do you think such countries would be willing to extradite their citizens to be tried in US court?

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

"Probable cause" is not the same as proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is the same standard required to get a warrant in the US for example.

However in this case the defence is not even attempting to say that he didn't commit a crime - only that the trial should be in the UK because he has AS. IANAL but I reckon if your lawyer admits that you made unauthorised access to a private government computer then they've pretty much given up on the "probable cause standard", as they have conceded all of the key factual points.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[StellarFury]

Because hacking into government databases is not the same as "speaking too freely."

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the U.S. government? Yes.

Exactly how is the US gov hurt? Seems to me he did them a favor by breaking in and notifying them (foolish doing that) before the really bad guys could. Then again the US DoD shitty security network is probably already swarming with rootkit installed zombies anyway.

Was it foolish of the guy breaking in? Yes. Should he deserve a death sentence for it? F*ck you then, you're no geek. What are you doing here??

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[morgan_greywolf]

Death by electrocution? Being a little melodramatic, aren't we? Computer hacking, even terrorism, is not a crime punishable by death in the United States. Here's a list of crimes punishable by death at the federal level in the United States:

• Espionage (18 U.S.C. 794)
• Treason. (18 U.S.C. 2381)
• Trafficking in large quantities of drugs (18 U.S.C. 3591(b))
• Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror,or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, regardless of whether such killing actually occurs. (18 U.S.C. 3591(b)(2))

At the state level, most states only have death penalty statutes for murder in the first degree (pre-meditated murder). Some states also have the death penalty for child rape, but no one has ever been executed for that.

So they'd basically have to try McKinnon on espionage (a charge that requires more significant proof than "breaking into government computers" in order to remotely entertain the possibility of a death sentence.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

McKinnon was not hacking, he hit computers with blank administrator passwords.
The big point is that he really must have discovered something, for the US to make such an effort to extradite him.

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough, thank you for the reasoned response. :)

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[badkarmadayaccount]

Waaaaaaaaait.
You mean to tell me that drug trafficking is punishable by death, but first degree murder by any reasonably applicable definition isn't?
*facepalm*

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[badkarmadayaccount]

I understood the whole post, except for the first sentence. Why is it a bad idea?
</snark>

Re:Extradition Act 2003

[Hognoxious]

Doesn't matter. The prosecutor should have kept his fat gob shut.

Down with the aspie defense!

[lacoronus]

I'm so sick of the aspie defense. Seems like every time a computer user is on trial (remember Reiser?), it gets rolled out. "My client is guilty as hell, but he's got Asperger's!" First, your mental handicap has to be to the point where you quite literally don't know what you're doing - so just give it up, having light Asperger's doesn't cut it. Second, it impacts the way people view us computer professionals - for example, when we try to argue for less copyright and more information freedom. The aspie defense does us about as much good as the "Your honor, this man did indeed kill his daughter, but he's Muslim, he can't help himself" defense does for the vast majority of Muslims.

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[morgan_greywolf]

Plus, the military does use Windows. FTBBCA:

The US military's use of Windows let Mr McKinnon in.

.

Microsoft should be paying the military restitution.

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[Jack Sombra]

Aye the Asperger defence is pretty lame but honestly he should not even have to use it, the extradition laws they are using to extradite him should not have been used it this case as not only were they intended only for suspected terrorists but to boot they are completely one sided, requireing no evidence of a crime to presented by the US for someone to be extradited from the UK while the same not being true in reverse

Though wonder why they have not pursued this to the European court level as the extradition treaty is already generally considered illegal at that level, just it has not been tested in their courts yet

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[lacoronus]

they are completely one sided, requireing no evidence of a crime to presented by the US for someone to be extradited from the UK

You know, I had to read the act twice to confirm that it really was so. That is just completely wrong. I really hope they take this to the Supreme Court - if nothing else, the publicity will perhaps help to overturn the law.

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[Byzantine]

Just to clarify—I haven't read the law in question—you mean "That is just completely [morally] wrong" rather than that the statement you quoted was contrary to fact?

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[oggiejnr]

This used to be true, however in the last couple of years the treaty has been fully ratified by the US such the the extradition conditions are now the same for both the US and the UK. See http://press.homeoffice.gov.uk/press-releases/UKUS-extradition-traety for details

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[lacoronus]

It is morally wrong. Your description of the law is correct.

For the record, I'm probably one of the biggest US-philes in Europe, and see the EU and the US as natural allies, but the alliance must be fair.

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[EasyTarget]

So, if (with evidence) we demanded that some mediocre nonentitiy US citizen be extradited for placing our citizens in danger, the US courts will approve it and systematically reject all appeals saying tha tthe treaty overrides your constitution? Way to go! finally you guys are seeing sense.

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that this would be a really shit example to use as a test case. An evidential hearing before extradition was ordered would have taken about two minutes and consisted of the Crown Prosecution Service standing up and saying "Your Honour, I would like to submit the following list of press clippings where the defendant's solicitor admits the defendant made intentional unauthorised access to US government computers".

Remember - for extradition it was never the case that the foreign government had to prove the entire case. It only had to provide a prima facie case to show that there was a real reason why the foreign government wanted to prosecute you and they weren't just wasting your time. In addition, the treaty DOES require the US to provide some evidence of a crime, just less than was the case before.

This whole thing is annoying. He could have taken the plea bargain a few years ago, and assuming good behaviour, served a year in US jails, been shipped back to the UK for another year / 18 months and then been paroled. The longer he drags this out, the less likely they are to reduce the sentence or look favourably on a request to serve most of the sentence in the UK.

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[Drakkenmensch]

I'm so sick of the aspie defense. Seems like every time a computer user is on trial (remember Reiser?), it gets rolled out. "My client is guilty as hell, but he's got Asperger's!"

If this defense was accepted in court, the unforeseen consequence would be that eventually companies and governments would protect themselves from preventing those with Asperger's Syndrome (or borderline equivalent behavior). Imagine mandatory mental screening on a yearly basis to prevent anyone with "the wrong kind of thinking" from being able to have internet access because one guy set a landmark case and got away with being just nuts enough to escape prison.

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[DriedClexler]

Okay, I agree Asperger's should be a valid legal defense for crimes. But at the same time, is justice really being dealt to Aspies? How many of them are convicted merely because juries think they "act weird", don't make eye contact, etc., and make an unjusitied inference that the defendant is guilty?

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[AndrewNeo]

But what if it were Linux? If they were stupid enough to make the root password 'password', it's not Linux's fault, and it's not Microsoft's fault for the gov. being dumb enough to leave their computers open.

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's very good legal arguments in this case, but what I find a bit scary is the Daily Mail suddenly promoting themselves to the front of the media campaign. For American readers the Mail is pretty ultra-conservative and often even doubts the existence of things such as AS, ADHD etc. Was wondering why they'd defend McKinnon but the answer is obvious. If he gets off with limited punishment they'll of course take the credit (despite only being interested for the past month or two). But they don't think he'll get off. They're heavily pushing the 'Oh, he's a retarded UFO wonk' angle knowing full well the Americans will demolish it in court (he may have AS but is probably pretty mild - the US prosecuters are bound to point out he's had girlfriends, a job, is media-savvy etc.). Then McKinnon will be getting chucked into jail sometime next year - probably weeks before the UK election so will finish off Gordon Brown. Plus it'll make the Obama administration look bad just in time for the senate elections which would be good news for the Mail and their far-right pals.

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. My wife always jokes that I'm a terrible liar. I have a hard time pulling off the truth without being pedantic or second-guessing myself.

  Unfortunately, white lies are a social lubricant that most people take for granted. Not being able to lie can make life rough. If I do pull it off, I get extremely anxious, and start thinking about the myriad contradictions and how I'll eventually get caught. I totally understand the concept of why you should lie in certain situations, which makes it even more annoying when I know I should be lying, but can't.

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[achaios]

I guess my problem is that if he's that sick/disabled, why does he have unsupervised access to the internet, a dangerous place for naive people? And yes, I guess this goes for children and teens, too.

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought they were planning to 'fry' him?

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[Anonymous Coward]

First, your mental handicap has to be to the point where you quite literally don't know what you're doing - so just give it up, having light Asperger's doesn't cut it.

The argument is that he might get an excessive sentence. 30 years hard time might be considered 'cruel and unusual' for a vulnerable individual. I don't agree but I hope, when it goes to trial, the judge has a sense of proportion. Assuming he gets convicted, of course.

Re:Down with the aspie defense!

[DriedClexler]

Argh! That should say, "Okay, I agree Asperger's NOT should be a valid legal defense for crimes."

What does Aspergers have to do with anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he fits the requirements of the extradition agreements between the US and the UK, then he should be extradited. If he wants to try to use Aspergers in his defence, he can do that over here.

Re:What does Aspergers have to do with anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, AS or not, a crime is a crime, those borders do not change. The dude with AS should understand strict borders more than anyone.

A schizophrenic still commits a crime when they kill someone, wether or not they had intentions or not.

Burn the witch !!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Burn her so she won't hex me no more !!

Right Place, Right Time

[xdor]

I guess you have to be at the right place at the right time to get a ticket to Guantanamo.
Maybe if he had been hacking via an Afghan proxy server?

I call shenanigans

[dieselpawn]

""Despite his growing affinity for the machine, he left school at 17 to become a hairdresser, a career cut short by a friend's insistence that there was better money, and he was better suited, to a career in IT."" http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/252972/gary-mckinnon-britains-hacking-hero.html I find it highly unlikely that an Aspie would ever become a hair dresser, an incredibly social job. Anybody who has every had any kind of contact with a true Aspie knows they avoid social situations like the plague. I call shenanigans.

Re:I call shenanigans

[FinchWorld]

I've had my haircut before from people with social skills to rival a radiator before. It my not be the norm, but it does happen.

Re:I call shenanigans

[Jeremy Erwin]

When I was a kid, I used to hate the sight of hair being cut

Re:I call shenanigans

[composer777]

Not true. Many aspies will go through all sorts of contortions to fit in. I played football in high school and had a C- average until my senior year, when I decided to start studying again, and got a 4.7 my final year (4.5 scale, honors courses went to 5.5, so it pulled me above 4.5). I hated football, but I hated myself even more, and wanted desperately to fit in. Having horrible motor coordination meant I was stuck playing line, and socially I was as clumsy as I was physically. It was a massive failure in terms of fitting in, but I had Aspergers, and didn't really understand that there was more to fitting in than adopting a stereotype. Looking back on it, I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a large number of bodybuilders (or athletes) who have some form of aspergers. It's the socially clumsy,"if I just get bigger biceps then everyone will love me" types that I'm thinking about.

Some Aspies avoid social situations, others will make clumsy, awkward attempts to fit in. They'll rehearse everything they say, over-prepare for every social event, and still find ways to fuck it up. They'll go to great lengths to fit in whatever way they can.

Re:I call shenanigans

[mazur]

Hair dressing is hardly "social interaction" in the normal sense: it's a very limited and clearly defined set of interactions, which loads of standard reactions, everything neatly predictable, and so can be performed like following a cooking recipe.

Stefan "Asparagus" Linnemann.

Good good

[Anonymous Coward]

Hes guilty as hell: we all know it. His lawyers are spinning the sympathy card around every do-gooding media type they can find when in reality any medical problems have absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the case. Ill take great satisfaction in seeing him locked up to rot in the US.

SEND HIM 2 TEXAS

[Anonymous Coward]

WE NO WHAT 2 DO WITH HIS KIND!

--
a consrvvativ on /. CAN have positive carma

Re:SEND HIM 2 TEXAS

[Norsefire]

Someone patented guessing passwords?

Re:SEND HIM 2 TEXAS

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone patented guessing passwords?

GUESSING PASSWORDS AINT LIKE UR WIFE!! NOT EVERYONE GETS A PIECE!!
--
a consrvvativ on /. CAN have positive carma

Welcome to the American Legal System

[Anonymous Coward]

Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here

AS is no excuse

[MikeRT]

Oh come on, stop making medical excuses for this guy. Most people with AS know that you cannot do something like this without breaking the law and getting punished.

McKinnon is just another geek who thought that a lack of security implied that he could just walk right in through the door without punishment. Chances are, he's also one of those geeks who would hypocritically go postal if he left his door unlocked and a bunch of people walked in and refused to leave.

"But it's a computer... it's **different** mmmmkay?"

Re:AS is no excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

"But it's a computer... it's **different** mmmmkay?"

Well, yeah. It's not trespassing. It's saying "Would you please send me this information?", and the computer at the other end saying "Sure!".

An email from 10 Downing Street

[Kalvis]

--- http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go --- the petition http://kalvis.com?PleaseGo.pdf --- the poster ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: 10 Downing Street Date: 2009/7/31 Subject: Your petition has been rejected To: petition@kalvis.com Hi, I'm sorry to inform you that your petition has been rejected. Your petition was classed as being in the following categories: * Issues for which an e-petition is not the appropriate channel Further information: We cannot accept petitions which involve individual legal cases. Individual legal cases are a matter for direct communication with the Home Office. If you wish to edit and resubmit your petition, please follow the following link: http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ex-treaty/BOdqUVCfKXpvB6NOBuAUBWV You have four weeks in which to do this, after which your petition will appear in the list of rejected petitions. Your petition reads: We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to: 'end our extradition treaty with the USA.' After the abuse of the extradition treaty in the Gary McKinnon case, we petition the Prime Minister to end the extradition treaty with the USA. -- the ePetitions team

Sophos's survey

[rs232]

"Sophos's survey of 550 IT professionals found that 71% believe McKinnon should not be extradited"

What exactly was asked in this 'survey', how were the questions phrased, what questions were asked before the one on McKinnon, why would it matter that they were 'IT professionals' considering that the hack McKinnon did consisted of logging into passwordless Windows NT computers and typing rude msgs (in wordpad) to the administrator

Re:Sophos's survey

[Anonymous Coward]

71% of 550 is 390.5

Re:Sophos's survey

[Anonymous Coward]

God damn moderates, putting half a vote to each side.

Re:Sophos's survey

[KrimZon]

388 of 550 is ~70.55%
393 of 550 is ~71.45%

Re:Sophos's survey

[RenderSeven]

According to Sophos the question was simply "Should Gary McKinnon be extradited to the USA?", link to Sophos here http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2009/07/mckinnon-loses.html While I have seen CNN change poll questions when reporting results, I wouldnt assume that here. However, another Sophos poll http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2005/07/va_sasserpoll.html on a completely different topic also had exactly 550 respondents, which strikes me as remarkably coincidental.

Your point that there is built in bias is probably correct though, as all polls have bias for all the reasons you list and more. I'd attach very little significance to the "IT Professionals" that took it because they were either assumed to be that by nature of them visiting the Sophos web site or because they claimed to be IT professionals, which is not quite the same thing.

The results have no meaning out of context either... given the current state of love for the USA I bet 71% of respondents wouldnt extradite anyone even if they confessed and had the victim's severed heads in their duffel bag.

Re:Sophos's survey

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

considering that the hack McKinnon did consisted of logging into passwordless Windows NT computers and typing rude msgs (in wordpad) to the administrator

Just because my door is unlocked it makes it okay to come in and take a crap in the middle of my floor?

Re:Sophos's survey

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly dunno whats it like in the States, but in my county (Scotland has mostly the same laws) walking through an open door to somebodies house isn't illegal.

Crapping on the floor would be - but I would be more likely to equate McKinnons actions to walking in and shouting "hello!?".

Even in cyber law terms this is a grey area. How do you qualify unauthorized access on box with no authorization? At the very least this is a question that should be decided in the British courts before we ever decide to hand him over.

asymmetrical extradition treaty

[rs232]

"Gary McKinnon has lost the judicial review of his case, dealing a potentially fatal blow to his hopes of avoiding extradition to the US" It's ironic that if the situation were reversed and under the 'evidence; presented in this case, the UK government would have no way of getting McKinnon extradited here. I guess we're not a real country ane'ways .. :)

Re:asymmetrical extradition treaty

[Anonymous Coward]

McKinnon's lawyers have not challenged the fact that he knowingly accessed computers he knew were US DoD computers. There has been no suggestion that he thought he had legitimate authority to access them. It's pretty obvious that this is a crime in both countries.

If the basic fact pattern is this clearly established, it would have been enough under any extradition treaty. He is not a good test case to challenge the legitimacy of this treaty. This argument is almost as bad as his lawyer's "he has Asperger's so he didn't realise accessing private DoD computers was a crime" theory.

Re:asymmetrical extradition treaty

[metrix007]

Well, the Brittish people should have lobbied and had the idiot law removed with their votes.

Is it really surprising anyone the US is trying to enforce their laws and their ideals on other countries?

What he did was wrong. He broke a law in his own land. Let it be dealt with there.

it's karma

[YesIAmAScript]

You do realize the UK government used anti-terrorist laws against Iceland right? And I would mention those people never set foot in the UK either.

What goes around comes around.

Re:it's karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Against their british assets, billions of them.
And that was long after McKinnon was in trouble anyway.

Re:it's karma

[vegiVamp]

So good to hear that the US is on the lookout to avenge the wrongs done to Iceland.

Oh, that's not what you meant ? Please tell me what you did mean, then, because from where I stand my neighbour killing his wife gives me no right whatsoever to kill him in turn.

Other way round, actually

[Kupfernigk]

The British Government is dead set on getting him extradited. They are obsessed with being seen as being tough on "cybercrime" in case the US removes our already piddling access to their secret data. The US only wants McKinnon because they are more likely to get a conviction with a long sentence as he is not a US citizen.

Really, it's the admins of those insecure computers who should be prosecuted. I thought it was a federal offense negligently to give access to secret data?

Re:Other way round, actually

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, it's the admins of those insecure computers who should be prosecuted

Especially when you consider that the security requirements for DoD computer systems are very clearly spelled out in controlled release documents.

Re:Other way round, actually

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Really, it's the admins of those insecure computers who should be prosecuted. I thought it was a federal offense negligently to give access to secret data?

There is no way McKinnon got access to classified data from his house. All classified networks are air-gapped.

Heh heh... Ass burgers

[Anonymous Coward]

obsession, social naivette/awkwardness? Maybe I have ass burgers too!

Should have...

[DarthVain]

...used the wookie defence...

Re:Should have...

[L4t3r4lu5]

They're saving that for US court, where it might just work.

Re:Should have...

[Ukab the Great]

Better know as the "Let me win or else I'll pull your arms out of your sockets" defense.

Many system vendors do blank admin pwd, no joke

[Anonymous Coward]

"He didn't "hack in". They had default "Administrator" accounts with no password. The hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage he's supposed to have caused was the cost of checking to see if he'd damaged anything (he hadn't) and fixing the security holes (which weren't his problem). They only noticed the intrusion because he left messages telling them!" - by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31, @10:08AM (#28895641)

Funny you should mention that: In 2007, while I was working doing virus/spyware/malware in general removals as part of my job duties (often taking over when the other techs failed to do so @ times), I saw that also, & on MANY systems from OEM's like DELL, HP, etc. et al!

Blew my mind - ESPECIALLY on what you now note: Because that's when those same system vendor oem's shipped those to users with ADMINISTRATOR ACCOUNTS with NO PASSWORD (blank pwd) @ all...

(So, as you state, ANYONE could remotely logon to them basically, from anyplace online, & because LanMan networking is enabled, by DEFAULT from MS & these system vendors (tcpip over netbios service & Client for MS Networks networking client for File & Printer sharing with Enable NetBIOS over Tcp/IP enabled-checked as working/on))...

BIG mistake on the part of the oem's distributing Windows rigs... huge.

APK

71% of crazy people ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... think Charles Manson should be let free.

I always thought the British were our Ally..

[tjstork]

The British Government is dead set on getting him extradited. They are obsessed with being seen as being tough on "cybercrime" in case the US removes our already piddling access to their secret data.

I always thought the British were our ally. Last time I checked, the British Army had 30,000 soldiers crossing the border into Iraq in March 2003 and they stayed for a pretty darned good time after the rest of Europe bailed.

Seems to me that information sharing between the two countries should be more, not less.

Re:I always thought the British were our Ally..

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me that if we were really allies the extradition treaty would be a two-way deal. We can't get one your citizens tried in this country via the treaty - it only works in your favor.

We're not allies, we're your fucking lap dog.

Re:I always thought the British were our Ally..

[tjstork]

We're not allies, we're your fucking lap dog.

Except for that part where you own all of our stuff! :-)

Stop and think

[Flea of Pain]

before you post, stop and think for a minute..."Have I ever logged onto someone's unencrypted wireless?"

I realize this is not quite the same, but the idea is if you leave giant gaping security holes, someone somewhere is going to exploit them. The US is lucky this guy found the hole and not some angry terrorist, or chinese/russian hacker with a beef against the West. Now that would have made for an interesting case. This guy's actions are the equivalent to you logging on to your neighbours unencrypted wireless, and them being nice enough to go over and tell them, and maybe even help them put the password on.

As the saying goes "No harm, no foul", and the only harm done was that the US had to fix it's own security. Tough having to admit your a bunch of idiots I guess.

Responsibility for ones actions

[realsilly]

It's a simple case of being responsible for ones actions. If you choose to do something, as a human, you weigh what you do on it's affect to others. Many people don't care or consider the consequences for their actions. Well now this person is faced with the consequences and doesn't like what will happen, thus the "Oh woe is me" arguement. I say if the courts find someone guilty, they should just get the punishment going and not have 50 million appeals. Medical conditions have become the excuse for so many court cases, that it truely does diminish the patience that humanity has for those who really do have no control of what they do due to medical conditions.

It's a slippery slope that's being opened up and it's getting more slippery every day.

Didn't we have the opposite recently?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes. In

http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/07/17/085244/New-Developments-In-NPGWikipedia-Lawsuit-Threat

where a UK computer was used to post information out of the UK in breach of copyright and that infringing work is still available in the UK.

Then it was all "hey, it's a US site, so why does it matter?" and "why do the UK laws apply in the US???"

Re:Didn't we have the opposite recently?

[morgan_greywolf]

Not the same thing. Copyright and cybercrime are two completely different areas of law.

insult to us others with Aspergers

[peter303]

We may socially subfunctional, but we can still tell right from wrong.

Tell Mr Brown what you think on his own website

[Kalvis]

You can vote for or against here: http://slashdot.org/submission/1044077/We-petition-the-Prime-Minister-to-resign?art_pos=1

Asperger's == Nerd

[Comboman]

Asperger's sufferers often exhibit obsessive behavior and social naivety ... Sophos's survey of 550 IT professionals found that 71% believe McKinnon should not be extradited.

Obsessive behavior and social naivety describes every IT professional I know (myself included). I'm amazed that only 71% don't think he should be extradited (the other 29% must be in denial).

Mod parent up

[Shin-LaC]

The American prison system (judging by how it's described by American sources themselves - often with glee) is something to which no civilized nation should allow its citizens to be subjected. Sometimes people seem not to realize how twisted it is that prison rape be considered a normal part of going to jail, instead of the vile barbarity that it is.

Re:Mod parent up

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Wow, simply wow. Have you been to Mexico? Egypt? Any nation outside of Western Europe or North America? I'll take an American prison any day with internet and three square meals.

Re:Mod parent up

[Ma8thew]

Just because somewhere else is worse doesn't mean that you can excuse your own system.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone actually show that prison rape is as common as alluded to and not just a rumor/joke?

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

I concur. I've had people actually express satisfaction in the idea that somebody is going to be raped in prison. I point out to them that that is wrong, and such behavior should not be joked about or considered acceptable, but should be prevented, and they're aghast that I give a damn about criminals, as they all deserve whatever's coming to them.

Right. Sure. No innocent person has ever been released from jail.

Re:Mod parent up

[Dr. Impossible]

Yes, because getting raped on a daily or weekly basis and probably getting infected with HIV is a-okay as long as you get three meals a day.

Here or There

[Dale512]

I'd rather him win his appeal and be charged in the UK. Let them try him and lock him up. I'd rather not pay for his club-fed stay.

assume for a moment his defense is correct

[circletimessquare]

i don't understand why this gets him off the hook

if you kill 20 people and plead insanity, you still get a form of punishment: the insane asylum. regardless of WHY someone commits the crime, is the more important priority of society protecting itself from people who engage in criminal behavior. whether because of moral failure, psychological defect, or some other variation on the tired "the devil made me do it" defense

you've been revealed as someone dangerous to society. therefore, some sort of restrictions on your freedom are necessary, regardless of WHY you commit various transgressions

so if he wins based on his defense, he'll still be punished

Uhm.. Really Now

[KingPin27]

FTFA----

McKinnon stands accused of hacking into US systems 97 times, causing millions of dollars worth of damage. McKinnon claims he was merely looking for evidence of aliens - though he doesn't deny the hacking charges. If convicted he could face 70 years in jail.

If the Aspergers defense doesn't work he could always try for insanity in the U.S!

/TROLL

The first time i heard about this was on the radio

[gemada]

and i thought they said "assburgers" disease...and i nearly crashed my car i laughed so hard.

Asperger's sufferers blah blah

[Anonymous Coward]

People who do stuff have an inclination to do that stuff. If we don't want them to do that stuff, then we have to take action. That is particularly so for people who are particularly likely to do the stuff we don't want them to do.

Any interest or quirk of character can be labelled a syndrome. It should not mean a get out of jail free card for life.

That said, I don't think he should be extradited..

Precisely

[Kupfernigk]

Either McKinnon had open access to unsecured information and no intention of committing a crime - which makes him innocent of any crime under UK common law - or he didn't. The US Administration wants to say that he had no access to anything sensitive, but that he should still be tried for a crime. This is stupid. The UK Government is supposed to have signed the UN Convention on Human Rights as enshrined in European law. They are trying to circumvent it. They are both stupid and malicious.

He used threatening language.

[Eevee]

Well, according to PC Pro, the note he left the property owner included:

...I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels.

That would make me a bit more tense than "Please remember to lock it."

Re:He used threatening language.

[Sabriel]

Me? "Cool, how'd you like to be paid to do that?" And then I'd fire the punk who hadn't even bothered to change the default manufacturer passwords!

Re:He used threatening language.

[Sabriel]

Of course, this presumes all he did was leave a note. If he actually vandalised my stuff...

Re:He used threatening language.

[Hammer]

OK so the note he left said "Change the lock or I'll take stuff next time."

Just not fair

[weekendli]

He is going to spend 60 years in US prison, according to the guardian.co.uk, as least the judge said so. Considering if someone kill a person by a car when he is drunk, he get less punishment than this poor boy. What I'm saying is he just don't deserve this harsh punishment.

UFOs - skunkworks link pissed NSA CIA and MIC

[Anonymous Coward]

They want to make an example out of Gary McKinnon.
They think he wanted to snoop on their skunkworks-style secretweapons or classified info which they covered up by calling it UFOs/unknowns.
This thing is fishy - to catch a scriptkiddie looking for UFOs with so much media exposure while the hundreds of really intelligent smart blackhats are just ignored.

This means that the US Govt has something to hide in the UFO files that Gary tried to access.
The truth is not out there, it's in there - and that's the real big deal.
IMO, YMMV.

Thank you

[LionMage]

I was recently diagnosed with Asperger's, and although it was a tentative diagnosis, it seemed to fit very well. I sat in shock as I read your post, because it seemed like something I would write. Even the part about anger being one of the few emotions you can experience readily. I get that too -- and it's easy for simple frustration to ratchet quickly into anger.

Thanks for sharing. Once upon a time, even I was skeptical of the existence of Asperger's Syndrome, but the evidence keeps piling up (both objectively, in the form of medical and scientific research, and subjectively, in terms of my self-analysis and recollections of events and behaviors throughout my life). Like you, my gait is screwed up -- indeed, I remember incidents in high school where other students would make fun of my peculiar walk. I never did learn how to ride a bicycle, despite numerous attempts (including some in adulthood).

The electric fence.

[westlake]

But we don't lock people up for 60 years for trespassing.

There have always been places where a physical intrusion - no matter how trivial - could quite conceivably get you shot.

The online world isn't so very different.

AS and dating

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you were trolling, but I need to respond. I have AS. My father has it. My grandfather had it. And my son and one of my daughters have it.

Awh shit, even people with Aspergers date and have sex. I need to get out of my parent's basement! :-)

Ignorant of the situation much?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a grip. He hasn't said he can't tell right from wrong, the only reason AS has been brought into his argument is because they are claiming his AS will make it had for him to survive in the US prison system which is a perfectly fair argument. Finding social situations more awkward than most people understand is a symptom of many AS sufferers even if it's not a symptom you personally have. Having that inability to deal with social situation with the US prison system will mean he'll either get ripped or shreds, or as his defence quite rightly states, simply kill himself.

He's not claiming mental incompetence as you and others seem to be suggesting, his defence are saying they do not believe the US prison system will be able to look after someone with the traits he has.

This is a perfectly valid argument, even the white collar crime section of US system is relatively brutal compared to those in Europe, and it's not as if there's an argument the brutality helps due to the US' relatively high crime and re-offending rate.

He admitted to doing what he did, he knows he was wrong. The problem is whether he should be stuck in a relatively brutal US prison with no hope of visits from his family due to them being 3000+ miles away, or whether he should be in a British prison which at least has a better track record of dealing with people like him, whilst allowing familiar faces like his mother to visit so he wont be turned into a suicide case.

This guy did not rape, murder, steal, he did not even have kiddie porn images on his machine. He telnetted/FTP'd/VNC'd/whatever into a few US government systems that had blank or default passwords.

Frankly I think community service and a criminal record is punishment enough for that, it's not even worth jail time. He's being hung out to dry simply because he made a laughing stock of the abysmal security of NASA et al made worse by the fact it's hardly the first time their IT security has made them a laughing stock.