Slashdot Mirror
In UK, Hacker Demands New Government Block Extradition
Stoobalou writes "Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon has called on the newly elected British government to put its money where its mouth is and tear up his extradition order. US prosecutors have been trying to get McKinnon before a New Jersey court for seven years after they caught him hacking into US military and NASA computers looking for evidence of UFOs. David Cameron, the newly elected prime minister, and Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, had both voiced their support for McKinnon's campaign against extradition. Other ministers in the coalition government had branded the extradition unjust. Clegg had even joined McKinnon's mother, Janis Sharp, on a protest march."
Expecting politicians to turn vague electioneering rhetoric into actual action.
McKinnons case will be quietly shuffled off to some under secretary to "look into" and once the media have lost interest he'll be on a plane to Dulles.
Say he fired a cruise missile at the whitehouse from the UK should he be tried in the UK?
Obviously, yes.
However I see the structure in your sentence implies the answer might be "No". And answer I can't even imagine.
Now I'm interested in anyone's explanation on why would someone have to face a legal process that's not of his country.
I'd welcome any other similar example too. Paying another country's taxes, electing another country's president (Ok, forget that last one if you're CIA).
The treaty was written and signed to combat terrorism. Is he a terrorist? I doubt it. Is it worth the cost to get him to the US to be tried? I doubt that too. For fuck sake go after the real terrorists rather than a misguided individual with a mental disorder who believes in aliens. FFS the US should be thanking him for finding security flaws and not selling them to someone else. In this case I say FUCK THE TREATY!
Hey, if the guy really was a suspected terrorist or was trying to insight people to cause terror then sure, let him get shipped off to the US.This would still be wrong in my opinion as you abide by the laws of the country you are in. That's why the internet poses a dimlema...it reaches across boundaries and borders.
HOWEVER, missing the point. The Labour UK goverment bent over backwards for the US, and allowed people like Gary to be shipped off. The agreement is NOT a two way thing and we can't demand anyone in the US is shipped to the UK.
BUT THE REAL CRIME HERE WAS WITH THE SECURITY OF THE SYSTEMS AND THE MODEL OF TRUST BETWEEN SYSTEMS THAT ALLOWED GARY TO INSTALL SOFTWARE.
On investigation, Gary is obviously NOT a terrorist and hence should simply face the punishment for hacking in the UK (which I believe he has done). As far as I know he FULLY complied with the US as they were threatening to send him to quantanimo bay.
If he had not have used a program (that he had purchased by credit card) then he would never have been caught and what he said it there are loads of hackers looking around. So I wonder how much the security has been improved and what protection people have on their data.
If I performed a criminal act, I can reasonably expect to be tried in the country where the crime was performed as the laws of that country were violated.
Seeing that McKinnon performed the "crime" of "breaking" (bad security is no security, therefore he did not break any security) into government computers in his home country, not inside the U.S., he needs to be put on trial in his home country.
In addition, the U.S. has shown to have completely no respect for human rights. So, he can reasonably be expected to be exposed to torture. Why would this guy be sent off to a strange country to stand "trial" for a crime he did not commit? I can imagine he'll just disappear once he enters the U.S.
Lib Dems are big on civil liberties, Conservatives will want to both undermine Labour and show themselves to be strong.
Blocking the extradition would give both leaders brownie points with their own MPs. They'll want to stifle any murmurs of discontent from MPs who weren't to happy at their leaders 'selling out' their core values to get in power.
If I performed a criminal act, I can reasonably expect to be tried in the country where the crime was performed as the laws of that country were violated.
Crimes are committed rather than performed, but yes, exactly.
Seeing that McKinnon performed the "crime" of "breaking" (bad security is no security, therefore he did not break any security) into government computers in his home country, not inside the U.S., he needs to be put on trial in his home country.
The question of where the crime was committed might be a little more complicated than you imagine. One suspects that McKinnon, while physically located in the UK, committed the crime in the US. The things you can do with the internets!
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Now I'm interested in anyone's explanation on why would someone have to face a legal process that's not of his country.
As one example, you might want to consider the the principle that forms the basis of war crimes tribunals.
Then, of course, there's the Polanski case ...
The crime was committed FROM the UK, upon computer systems residing on US soil.
If he didn't want to be punished, why did he volunteer for it by committing the crime? No sympathy here.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
The issue here isn't what he did and where, it's a question of excessive and inhumane punishment. In the UK, he'd be expected to get maybe 2 years in a minimum security prison, probably with an order preventing internet access for a couple of years, maybe a fine or some form of remuneration to the US gooberment. In the US, he faces fifty years in your oh so popular Federal PMITA prison system.
Remember: He fully admitted breaching the systems described; He had no malicious intent, he was investigating UFO cover-ups; He has recently been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome, and professional medical opinion is that he will fulfil his stated intention to commit suicide if extradited to the US for trial; The access he obtained was extremely easy to obtain, and would most likely have been abused by a malicious attacker had it not been discovered by Garry's actions.
Garry is guilty of illegally accessing government computer systems in the US, but the sentencing guidelines would put him at at least 70 years old when he is released. There are no words for how inappropriate that is.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Lets say that I send information about bypassing censorship to someone living in China. Should I be sent to China to be prosecuted about this? Of course not: The deed should be judged based on the laws of the country where I was when I committed the deed. Even if the target is in another country.
Now, you can say "But that isn't illegal in the country in which you live. It is different.". I don't think that changes anything (because it still means that I should be judged by the country in which I am) but let's look at another example where this isn't the case.
Let's say I download the latest blockbuster movie through the bittorrent network. It is illegal here and it is illegal in the USA. Most likely the company that owns the rights to the movie is in USA and it might even be that some of the people I downloaded the movie from (for simplicty's sake, let's even say that all of them) could be located in the USA. Does that mean that I should be sent to USA to be prosecuted instead of being prosecuted by them in the justice system of this country? I certainly don't see the logic here.
The guy lives in UK and was in UK when the crime was committed. As such, can you explain why he should be sent to USA to be prosecuted instead of being trialed in the UK, in a way that is also consistent on your views about the two examples I gave. Naturally, if you disagree with me (that the people in those examples should be sent to China and USA respectively), it becomes a very easy task.
Remember: He fully admitted breaching the systems described; He had no malicious intent, he was investigating UFO cover-ups; He has recently been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome, and professional medical opinion is that he will fulfil his stated intention to commit suicide if extradited to the US for trial
Oh, right then, guess that makes it all ok.
Sent from your iPad.
If you were located in Saudi Arabia at the time you did it, sure. Otherwise it is up to the Saudi people to ensure they don't import anything from other countries which is illegal in their own. Just like it's not legal to import legally purchased canabis from Holland into most other countries.
Most of these laws were written a long time ago by people with no understanding of technology, so they don't take into account that someone can cause illegal activity to take place half way across the world without requiring a local agent in that area to carry out the crime on their behalf.
I wonder what the legal status of remotely controlled weapons being operated from a different country would be...
As for crimes committed in war, it is the dominant side who decides whats legal and whats not, the laws of the losing side don't count for anything because they're no longer in a position to enforce them.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
If they break into the car/house without doing any damage its a petty crime. A crime yes, but a minor one. Not something you extradite people for with anti terrorism laws exactly.
HTTP/1.1 400
It must be me, but I can never bring up to much sympathy for criminals.
Oh, he had aspergers. Okay, fine with me. Lock him in an institution then since by his own admission, he cannot stop himself from breaking the law, therefor the change of it happening again are high indeed.
Maybe it is just because every single criminal has an excuse and somehow their mental disability NEVER EVER has interfered with them before, nor should it after they are let go. Odd that eh? "Your Honor, I am insane so let me go, but I should not be locked up in an insane asylum because the moment I am out of here I am perfectly sane again." Somehow aspergers only seems to show up in people who are clearly a bit off but do not commit crimes or in people who commit crimes where nobody noticed it before or deemed it serious enough to take action.
Facing the consequences of your actions. Must be an out of date concept. Quick find me a disease I can use to get out of it.
And don't mod me down, asperges made me do it!
And perhaps I am just fucking tired of parking my bike outside a busy supermarket and when I come back I find that someone had tried to steal it before noticing it is locked, with hundreds of people around but if you kick the shit of them you are the one going to jail. Frankly this guy gets on my nerves. He has two choices, go to jail and I hope he has the shit raped out of him or be treated as the mentally retarded person unable to be responsible for his actions he claims to be. You can't have it both ways. Either you are free with responsibilities or you are not. Pick one.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What is the difference between hacking the Pentagon because you believe in aliens and hacking the Pentagon because you believe in Allah?
Everything.
While the mechanics of cracking system security may be the same, what you intend to do with the information you uncover, and your broader intentions against the US (if any) are very different.
In the case of Aliens, you're not exactly looking to fly planes into buildings, blow up cars in Times Square, or behead journalists. In the case of Allah, these intentions have already been demonstrated rather unequivocally in the real world, so extrapolating threats based on variations of past performance is not unreasonable, nor likely to yield broadly inaccurate predictions. Until flying-saucer nuts start threatening non-believers with death and mayhem, I'll tend to treat them as harmless eccentrics rather than potential terrorists, even when they cross the line and stupidly try to break into military computers.
There's absolutely no reason for the US to go after this guy--he's got a mental disorder, has already been severely chastened for his actions, is clearly not a threat to the US (or anyone else), and isn't likely to survive the so-called 'justice' America has in store for him.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
It seems to make it reasonably okay to me. The point of the law isn't to be a set of rules that exists solely for the point of having rules, like some sort of game-theory problem or videogame diversion, but to keep society reasonably in order. On the list of things that cause significant problems for society, and which are worth allocating resources and authority to stop, a crackpot trying to find UFO evidence is pretty low; the only real damage such a person causes is essentially accidental, and doesn't seem worth extraditing someone to another country or jailing them for decades over (even if you're purely selfish: remember, jailing people for decades costs you lots and lots of money).
I'd say the proper response to a slightly crazy person breaking into computers to find UFO evidence is to institutionalize them for some period, and then try to wean them back into society, probably while keeping their computer use restricted or monitored initially.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The military computer had no password protection, so this guy "hacked" nothing. He is not a hacker..... the front door was wide open. In most U.S. jurisdictions leaving the front door open makes the OWNER guilty of the crime, so the network IT guy should be the one charged. The person who entered through the front door gets a lesser sentence of "trespassing" which is just a few months jailtime.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I'm interested in anyone's explanation on why would someone have to face a legal process that's not of his country.
Because he committed the crime abroad. Where he was sitting when he commanded the crime to happen isn't relevant, so long as it has an extradition treaty. If you sat in London and hired an assassin over the phone to kill someone in New York, you'd be accessory to murder in New York, not in London.
Gary's a fully-functioning adult with a girlfriend and common sense. His only mental questionability is that he was overconfident; result: he got caught. He's guilty as sin. Extradite the daft bugger and be done with it. It's not like he's facing the death penalty.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
It actually occurred in both countries, in a legal sense. People saying it only occurred on one country are showing either a bias of opinion on the matter, or ignorance.
Does it really matter? He knowingly hacked the US Pentagon which is a breach of US national security. Anyone knows getting caught doing something like this carries consequences. Do I believe the consequences should be adjusted to fit the crime? Yes. Do I believe it's unreasonable for him to face consequences in the US for a crime committed against the US? No.
Out of genuine interest: do you believe he's likely to face 'reasonable' consequences for his actions if tried in the US?
This is a man with a slight mental illness who used default passwords on public-facing servers to look for evidence of UFOs. Stupid as hell, sure, and probably deserving of some level of punishment (although I'd be inclined to suggest psychiatric treatment), but not remotely worthy of several decades in an American federal prison, IMO.
Do you think he would realistically get less than ten years if tried in the US on national security related charges? Do you think that would be an acceptable punishment if he were sentenced as such?
Yes, and in the UK he'd get sentenced for breaking into a computer. The US want to punish him for the crime of showing what a bunch of incompetent fucks the clowns in pentagon are.
According to the prosecutor, they intend to "fry him". That alone is proof that a) he won't have a fair trial and b) they intend to issue a disproportionate sentence. The former at least is grounds for the Home Secretary - or rather a competent one - to veto the extradition.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The physical location of the perpetrator at the time he or she commited the criminal act defines the crime scene, at least in any sane jurisdiction. Otherwise, you'd have extradition requests from Thailand and a host of other places with lese majeste laws for things people in other countries wrote on their web pages.
A countries penal laws can have provisions for applying in other cases, but those are exceptions to the rule. If a country has arrested someone who committed a crime while he was physically present in said country, then it's that countries f***ing job to put that someone on trial.
I think you're confusing it with the story back in the 80s that McDonalds were funding them.
Funny how the IRA suddenly got suddenly short of cash after 9-11, though.
People with Asperger's Syndrome aren't crazy, and it's not a treatable condition. The actual physical structures of their brains are different than typical people's brains.
Monitoring computer usage would make sense, and counseling with a licensed psychologist who's experienced dealing with autistic people seems like a good idea, because such a psychologist may be able to better explain why not to do such things, but denying computer usage would likely make him more obsessed and might lead to more negative actions on his part in the future.
>Not that surprising really as for decades the USA refused to extradite convicted terrorists that had fled to the USA from both the UK and France.
Also funny how those US citizens who openly funded the IRA were not held accountable as well.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams