Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In UK, Hacker Demands New Government Block Extradition

Posted by kdawson on from the holding-out-for-regime-change dept.

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."

4 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. The principle of the matter. by rainmouse · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The principle of the matter is that it is a very unbalanced extradition treaty the UK has with the US. A fast track extradition policy that allows the USA to force the extradition of a British citizen without offering any evidence and also removes a British citizens right to even appeal this decision. This by the way is strictly a one way process as all US citizens are fully protected by the US constitution. Of course they even get to choose what state to extradite them to where they can take advantage of varying laws and sentencing. I believe this was an errata added in 2006 but don't quote me on that.

    This is what happened to the NatWest Three, a UK based offence against a UK bank. Of course they were extradited to Texas where it was felt they could hit them with more offences for longer sentencing and with an easier conviction (of course there is a huge tinfoil hat conspiracy regarding using these as fall guys in a forced plea bargain to cover up Bush administration involvement in the Enron scandal but that is an argument for another day)

    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030041_en_1

  2. Re:But now by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    that's the problem in this case. Under the new 'fast track' extradidion, a British court never gets to consider whether there is evidence to justify the charge.

    That's important in this case, because although Gary admits that he hacked the computers, the key point is what level of damage he did. There is a strong implication that the damage numbers were concocted in order to meet the threshhold required to justify extradition.

    Essentially, in order for the extradition to work, the US have to state damages above a certain level. Gary's team contest that the $700k damages alleged were simply concocted to meet this level.
    Given that Gary hacked into computers that just had the default windows password set - and that the damage was calculated by figuring the cost to audit and fix this breach, there is at least an argument that this should have been done anyway, and isn't damage caused by Gary.

    Unfortunately, Gary doesn't get to make that argument until after extradition.

    --
    VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
  3. Re:But now by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    However in order to be extradited the US Gov had to show damages above a certain level.

    WHich they *blatantly* fabricated. $700k to audit windows computers to fix a *default password*? That cost was already sunk - they would have had to change them anyway, or they shoudl have done!

    ANd uner the one sided, inane extradition treaty you cannot fight this until after you have left your home country behind...

  4. Re:A little perspective from the UK by Xest · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "I rather suspect that that imbalance is what causes many people much disquiet."

    Actually, I suspect it's largely patriotism. No one wants to see one of their citizens handed over to a foreign power with no worthwhile favour in return, and yet, that's exactly what the Labour government was proposing.

    I'd wager this has been fed by the fact we've got some of our soldiers dying in a war, that, once you cut away the rhetoric, really had fuck all to do with us, and made us less secure in that we're not as much a target as the US- prior to that, we weren't really a target for Islamic terorism because we were so tolerant of islamic communities. It's further not helped by the fact that when the US manages to kill some of our soldiers in a friendly fire "accident" (I wouldn't call it an accident, I'd call it incompetence) they refuse to assist in the coroners investigation by witholding the gun cameras. Add to this the threats of withdrawing security cooperation with us when our courts wanted to release evidence of our secure services being complicit in torture of British citizens by US forces and you begin to see why there is such a backlash.

    Probably, if the US hadn't been so difficult over so many things over the last decade, despite us giving them something that can't really have a value put on it - the blood and lives of our soldiers in support of their war - then they could've gotten away with this extradition and a lot of people wouldn't have even batted an eyelid at the case.

    But no that didn't happen, and so people in the UK have simply had enough, and McKinnon has become the catalyst for which people are standing up and demanding that our government starts saying no to the US.