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).
Parties in opposition frequently seem to criticise what the government does for the sake of it. Is this just another case of "now its business as usual" or did they really believe in what they were saying and ensure that legislation brought in to counter terrorism isn't used randomly against British citizens.
Whilst it's undeniable I think that he did actual do it, there are a lot of people that cannot see why he should be extradited. The UK already has adaquate laws for the prosecution of the crime, and the crime was committed in the UK so it has always seemed odd to a lot of people that he should have been extradited, especially with the massive imbalance in potential sentence between the UK and US for this. I rather suspect that that imbalance is what causes many people much disquiet.
Cameron is not going to be too concerned either way one suspects, although he will probably lean towards not extraditing him. Clegg however as a hard and a fast Liberal is almost certainly going to move all that he can to ensure he is not extradited. The one person to consider though in all this is Kenneth Clarke, whos is the Justice Secretary. He has interesting views - he once called Camerons plans for a British Bill of Rights "Xenophobic and a legal nonsensity". Quite what his feelings are on the extradition - and he gets the ultimate say as Justice Minister are as yet unknown. From what little I know of him personally I suspect he would favour prosecution in the UK but for all that his views are relatively unknown.
I'd welcome any other similar example too. Paying another country's taxes,
American expats are the only nationals in the world who have to pay income tax to their country of citizenship even when they have lived on foreign soil for decades.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
"And he never hacked into any important or valuable computers, only webservers."
Oh right, so webservers arn't an important part of the internet then?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mckinnons case the statement you made is just moronic.
And as for it being long ago, so was WW2. Perhaps we should just let old nazi murderers have a nice peaceful retirement too?
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!
What's your definition of "one's country"?
Apparently its different from that of all the other countries except the USA.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
"one's country" is the country which owns you.
Now I'm interested in anyone's explanation on why would someone have to face a legal process that's not of his country.
It depends on the rules of court for claiming jurisdiction, often jurisdiction is extended to the place where an offence is committed. This is not necessarily where the accused was at the time of the offence, as in this case, where, depending on the relevant law, the offence, at law, may have been committed where the "break-in" occurred.
As regards extradition, where I am .au, and I imagine in the UK too (since we share much of the same law on questions like these), an extradition should be granted only for an offence recognised by local (ie the country granting the request) law, and for which the punishment would not be considered unduly harsh by the standards of the local country. Thus most countries won't extradite (or even cooperate with supplying evidence) if there is a possibility that the state will execute the individual.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
"one's country" is the country which owns you.
With a careful definition on what a country is and how can it "own" things, that definition is quite appropiate.
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.
If the government has nothing to hide, then they shouldn't be worried about people trying to search for UFOs. It's obvious that the US government is trying to hide secrets from UFO investigators like Gary McKinnon. To this day the government refuses to acknowledge that unidentified flying objects are a mystery because of their lack of identification.
Now lets seque into reality:
Though I often wonder, that so many thousands of corporate executives can commit crimes with immunity or just a slap on the wrist, and not ONE US president has ever gone to jail for committing a crime, and yet they can spend time and money trying to incarcerate a UFO investigator, people who smoke marijuana, and people who look at pornography. It's amazing how popular democratic fascism has become over the past 30 years.
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.
If I put a picture of my wife on the internet should I be extradited to Saudi Arabia for breaking their laws and corrupting the morals of their citizens?
We could do this all day...
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Well, IIRC, the computers he "hacked into" weren't even password protected for the most part. He wandered blithely through some of the most sensitive computer networks in the US for months, unchallenged, and was only caught when someone noticed the mouse pointer moving by itself on a monitor somewhere.
So, a lot of US brass got egg on their face, and want to throw the book at the poor bastard. The concern is that if he's tried over here, he'll get sent down for five years, be out in three, and end up with job at a security consultancy. Considering that the only harm he's caused is forcing the US military to properly secure a lot of their computer network, that doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
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.
But there is a special treaty between the US and the UK that makes it easier. The last I heard, the US hadn't gotten around to ratifying its half of the agreement though, so it is one direction only, but it has been only seven years or so. Anyone got an update?
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
... then how are they going to know how much you earn anyway? Surely you could just tell them anything and end up paying little or no tax?
In my experience, that's what usually seems to happen: people just ignore this law because it's almost impossible to enforce in many cases.
The exception is where the person still has a significant legal connection with the U.S. -- for instance, someone who works for a U.S. company in one of their foreign offices, and is paid by the U.S. arm of the company. Even in that case, there's a pretty large exemption on which you don't have to pay U.S. taxes, which pretty much covers your entire salary unless you're very well paid.
Because of the large exemption, the IRS also has little incentive to even try to enforce the law unless you're an executive or something and they suspect you have a substantial salary.
We live, as we dream -- alone....
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 ...
He illegaly gained access to servers in the US, so he commited the crime in the US and should be prosecuted there.
Who decided he illegaly gaines access? The US?
Now imagine you're just browsing and North Korea decides you were illegally accessing their servers. Should you be sent there? Or maybe it'd be more reasonable that the north korean government informs yours of what they see as a crime and let your own law decide whether you're a criminal or not.
Crime committed FROM the UK against US property is more like it.
If I shoot someone across a state line, the crime is committed upon the victim.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Ok, first off, this "hacker" with aspergers, if I remember correctly, used a 56k modem, while being constantly high, to scan for windows boxes with blank passwords.... And the US wants to hang him high? Car analogy incoming: If you leave your car (computer system) on the internet (imagine Cuidad Jaurez) with its window down (ports open, blank passwords), and someone comes along and replicates the iPod in your car, still leaving your iPod there, is it really that bad? As for the things he found, he said the most interesting things were lists of "non-terrestrial" officers and lists of ships that don't exist in any US fleet, but again, he was very high, and is therefore unreliable. I just figure this is a honeypot system (or disinfo) setup to track similar attempts from foreign governments, which are good at getting info and keeping it secret, whereas joe schmo 56k modem (I still lol @ this, but remember, wardialing (though it's not what he did) isn't quite so dead as you may think) finds info like this and is like"omg, I found possible evidence of secret spaceships!" Regardless, its just pathetic that even Robert Gates at the time admitted to over 300 successful penetrations, not attempts, of government systems per day! Blank passwords, tsk tsk.
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
Yup! No change. It's one way.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
American expats are the only nationals in the world who have to pay income tax to their country of citizenship
That is only if they want to retain their USA citizenship. They don't have to keep it. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/841/how-do-i-go-about-renouncing-my-u-s-citizenship
Plus, extending the "think-of-the-children" category, in the UK I think it is now possible to be tried for crimes against UK law committed overseas - even if they were legal in the country they were committed (although I don't have a citation). The law used to do this was made to get at the sex tourists who go to countries with a very low age of consent
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
Obviously, yes.
Is it really that obvious? For example, should the Lockerbie bomber (Pan Am flight 103) be tried in Libya or in the UK?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Even here, in the UK, it's against the law to gain unauthorized access to a computer system.
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/
BBZZZTTT, WRONG! Australians also have to pay income tax to the Aaustralian tax office even though the don't live there or use any of the services that income tax provides.
unfair and stupid, yes.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
He admitted gaining access, and in the US it is illegal. There's not a lot of wiggle-room on that point. I think the main issues are that he's mentally unwell, will kill himself if extradited, and the proposed US punishment is disproportionate to the crime.
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.
Cite?
Time says otherwise:
the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that taxes its overseas citizens, subjecting them to taxation in both their country of citizenship and country of residence.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
If they commit the crime abroad and against a citizen of another state I guess the local justice can do what the fuck they want. And the foreigner traditionally does not have the same level of protection of a citizen. For this reason treaties are signed that allow him to contact his embassy, for example, have a right to an interpreter, etc. But without a treaty whoever has him in their hands can try him.
Also, one's own country could be too light on punishment with that, or could have no laws against the particular crime. For example Vatican does not recognize some financial crimes, so that their citizens (like cardinals) are not punished for those. Another country that seldom punishes his citizens for crimes committed abroad is the US, especially when the responsible is a military. There is a long list of complaints against US bases around the world for this reason. The US have convicted and imprisoned many foreigners in their history. On the opposite side, in one recent case a US citizen was convicted in Italy for killing an British citizen, and the US acknowledged that the trial was fair.
Finally, if one's own country is not democratic and does not respect human rights, my government should *never* send anyone there. If they commit crimes they will be tried where they can defend themselves.
So there *are* reasons for not trying a person in his own country, sometimes, and each case is different.
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.
Because of the large exemption, the IRS also has little incentive to even try to enforce the law unless you're an executive or something and they suspect you have a substantial salary.
Except for recent rules where expats are required to report any foreign bank account with more than $10K and failure to do so can result in serious penalties.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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
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!
Even here, in the UK, it's against the law to gain unauthorized access to a computer system.
And yet a judge has to decide whether you committed a crime or not.
Another country telling yours you committed a crime may, as the very most, grant an investigation. Period.
I think lots and lots of community service, fixing PC's for the elderly or refurbishing PC's the low income earners, is the right way to go with non violent crimes like this, which frankly are pretty victimless.
5 years doing helpdesk support every weekend for free would cure him of any urges to break into other computers. hell he'd probably vomit at the sight of a pc after that.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
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
The Polanski case is interesting in this respect. He could in theory be tried in France for what he did in California... except that a trial had already taken place there, so it's impossible.
There's nothing like $HOME
actually, the max sentence in the UK at the time of the offence would be 6 months. (according to wikipedia anyway)
-and given that this was low tech hacking (just using default passwords and not damaging stuff), he might get off with a slap on the wrist.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
It doesn't matter, you'd still violate US law.
In fact, the first $ 90,000 earned abroad is exempt. Also, you are credited for foreign taxes paid, assuming the US likes the countey. So your only fucked doubly if youjr earning more than $ 90,000 in Cuba, Iran, etc.
That said, there is still the fucking insanity of needing to file!
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.
Suppose those American owned servers had been in a datacenter located in China? Not an unreasonable hypothetical at all.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Case in point
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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
I would say getting hold of a £500000 ICBM is still pretty far fetched. We have gun laws in the UK.. maybe the Americans can buy them in walmart, but we don't have the second amendment here :-)
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
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
I would say getting hold of a £500000 ICBM is still pretty far fetched
Well, we can offer you the "silver deal". Instead of flying over the ocean, the missile gets a little boat and two robotic arms to row. It does take some time to reach its destination, though.
From what I have read of UK law interpretation a GROSSLY simplistic overview;
A citizen of a country is required to conform by the rules of that country. In return for complying with the rules that citizen is offered protections by his country to which he is a member - and is subject to punishment if he does not comply with the laws of his country.
Country's, however, can be seen as legal "persons" in their own right. as can a government agency, a company (corporation) and verious other groups of individuals.
If a British citizen were to commit a crime in the U.S.: the Brit has essentially committed a crime against the U.S. as a legal person, since his victim was under protection from the United States.
The united states could now complain to the U.K.
The U.K can then if requested, Extradite the citizen: - essentially relinquishing protection for it's citizen. By relinquishing its protection it is compensating the United States as well as sending a message that this criminal action was done by a "rouge individual" rather than the country itself.
If the U.K refuse to extradite they are essentially condoning the criminal action upon which the U.K. becomes the injuring party and the U.S. becomes the injured party.
Options now for the British would be to make a monetary reparation (as frequently happens for war reparations / covert operations), come to an informal agreement (possibly by offering to encarcerate the British criminal on British soil), or simply do nothing (a good example of doing nothing is the American drone attacks in Pakistani territory). It is also entireley possible for the injured country to declare was on the injuring country (This was the precedent for the war in Afghanistan)
It is important to note here that should the British Citizen who actually committed the criminal offence be tried he is being tried (and potentially punished) for the damage he has done to the U.K. and NOT the U.S.
As can be seen in the case of McKinnon it does not matter where he was physically, his attack was against the United States - and since he is a British citizen it is up to the British government to decide whether to extradite him.
this concept is not limited to serious crimes. TECHNICALLY China could demand the extradition of a western journalist for writing a piece inflammatory to China, and America could request the extradition of a British citizen for littering. the only difference is the former would almost certainly be thrown out before it had any chance of making it past junior civil servants, and the latter would cost far more than could be justified to the American people.
Personally, I hope that (being a patriotic Brit) that they do not extradite him and instead seek other means of coming to an agreement - but that is my opinion and I made that clear along with my other opinions on election day.
As I recall it, he did not really hack into anything. There was no security system in place that prevented him from gaining access, he did not have to write any sort of code, he was just browsing around a network that was supposed to be internal.
Personally, I wonder why the people who failed to secure that network, which supposedly contains sensitive information, are not on trial.
Palm trees and 8
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 would say getting hold of a £500000 ICBM is still pretty far fetched. We have gun laws in the UK.. maybe the Americans can buy them in walmart, but we don't have the second amendment here :-)
A cruise missile can be a model airplane. An ICBM is a missile.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I don't want to spend the 1 million + dollars to incarcerate him for 50 years because he thought aliens were real. Give him probation or a few years at most, there is no reason for these hard assed sentences.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
One definition of being authorized is that you have the correct passwords and those passwords were obtained legally. If the system had the default Windows passwords it's reasonable to assume they were left there for anyone who knew those passwords to access.
If you don't have a fence you can yell "Get off my lawn!!!" at me, but you cannot arrest me for trespassing.
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...
Now I'm interested in anyone's explanation on why would someone have to face a legal process that's not of his country.
Someone should be tried for a crime in the country the crime was committed on. That's why the extradition figure exists, otherwise there could be universal impunity to any crime by just running off to the neighboring country.
A hacker doing its thing in the pentagon has committed a crime in US soil no matter where the hacker's physical location was at the time. The object of the hack is physically in the US, thus it's fair for the US to ask for extradition (and for the UK to deny it). On top of that, his actions might be illegal in the country he's committing the crime from, so the hacker could conceivably tried and charged twice.
Your head a splode
Not only that, but this whole extradition process must cost a lot. Both the American prosecutors and the British who must analyze the case have more important things to worry about.
He illegaly gained access to servers in the US, so he commited the crime in the US and should be prosecuted there.
he is accused of illegally gaining access (even his own admission isn't sufficient to declare him guilty until he is found guilty by a jury - he may have given it in the hope of staying in the UK)
But your whole argument is totally stupid and short sighted. Let's find some equivalents.
What is so wrong with just trying this in the UK where the guy was all the time?
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Say he fired a cruise missile at the whitehouse from the UK should he be tried in the UK?
Obviously, yes.
So you think a US court should not prosecute murders of US citizens on US soil because they lack jurisdiction? Guess you'd better ask them to call off the manhunt for Osama bin Laden, according to you only the Taleban in Afghanistan can prosecute anything. Nobody can force a state to extradite its citizens but he ever went to the US or a country that has a deal with the US I'd say that is fair game. However, it should only apply if you specifically targetting the US. If it's on a web server anywhere in the world the person who "brings" it to the US by requesting it should carry the responsibility, the server should only respect local law.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Apart from the uniquely one-sided US/UK treaty applying in this case anyway, unfortunately he won't be facing an actual death sentence, so we can't use that as a get out. (Although, BTW, it has been strongly argued that a 10 year sentence in a foreign jail will result in him killing himself anyway).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Obviously, yes.
Is it really that obvious? For example, should the Lockerbie bomber (Pan Am flight 103) be tried in Libya or in the UK?
Seeing as the crime was committed in the UK, he should be tried in the UK (and was). Gary's crime was also committed in the UK, so he should be tried here.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Wait, so they reckon it'll cost seven hundred grand to change a few passwords off the defualt? Where do I sign up for that job?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
I have never explicitly authorised anybody to follow the web page link on my profile.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Countries can't own anything. The Queen does all that, don'tchaknow?
Your obedient subject,
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
BBZZZTTT, WRONG! Australians also have to pay income tax to the Aaustralian tax office even though the don't live there or use any of the services that income tax provides.
Not always. If you are doing a long term overseas stint you would not be a "resident for tax purposes" and do not have to pay income tax on your salary (dividends and capital gains on Australian investments still attract some tax). This page sums it up nicely...
Apparently the government made it a bit tougher for short term overseas postings (where you would still be considered a resident for tax purposes) though. But you can get a living away from home allowance which probably soothes the pain a little bit.
"Why are you watching the washing machine?"
"I love entertainment, as long as it's clean"
Speaking from experience, it's still a huge hassle. While I personally don't anyone who just ignores the law (although granted most of the people I know still work for U.S. companies) it makes your taxes so complicated that you pretty much can't file them without the help of a tax attorney.
Most importantly, you're still getting screwed because the country in which you reside (and work, presumably) still expects you to pay taxes, so in the end you're paying:
(local taxes) + (U.S. taxes) - (some exceptions meant to avoid double-taxation) = (still more than you would pay in either country if you were taxed only by that country)
When the other country you're living in is a European country with a very high tax rate (e.g. France, Sweden, etc.), you end up paying a lot more in taxes than you are getting in return benefits.
This space up for sale.
As regards extradition, where I am .au, and I imagine in the UK too (since we share much of the same law on questions like these), an extradition should be granted only for an offence recognised by local (ie the country granting the request) law
Maybe not. The extradition of Ian Norris was approved by a court despite his acts not being a crime in the UK. He appealed on that basis and was successful, but then got extradited on "obstruction of justice" - a pretty generic offence. I would like to see the British judicial system attempt to extradite a US citizen for "obstruction of justice" with regard to an event that was not a crime in the US - I suspect such an extradition attempt would be unsuccessful.
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
Well, yeah. I didn't mean to imply he found his way on there by accident. He's a UFO nut and he was looking for evidence that the US military was suppressing information on alien activities or some such.
The point is that a great many of the computers he accessed didn't even have password protection. And while that doesn't excuse McKinnon's intrusion, it does explain why the US armed forces are annoyed about this all. McKinnon made them look like idiots, and so they want to make an example of him in return.
Which, returning to the original point, is why the US is so determined that he not be tried in the UK. They're worried he might get a fair sentence.
Yeah. Exactly right.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
in order for the extradition to work, the US have to state damages above a certain level.
Citation please? As far as I know, the US only have to show that they suspect he may have committed a crime eg. Alex Stone) was extradited on mere suspicion of assault, with no evidence and no $ loss value.
Um, I doubt that very much. As long as you hold citizenship you're going to be getting some perks, if only in terms of consular service and possible military coverage. Because of the way that the US tax code works in many parts of the world you don't even start paying taxes until you've hit a pretty good standard of living as far as the US taxes go.
Oh, so now "the servers were located in [X] so the crime was in [X]" only holds true for DOD servers? ...
And actually, DOD servers in china are probably not as unrealistic as you'd like to think...
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Seeing 'Hacker' in the same sentence as 'UK' and 'Government' made me think this story was about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hacker
"If you think the problem is bad now, just wait until we've solved it." --- Arthur Kasspe
He illegaly gained access to servers in the US, so he commited the crime in the US and should be prosecuted there.
That's an interesting situation. Did he go to the servers or did the servers come to him? Saying that he committed his crime in the US is bordering on wishful thinking for the prosecutors, but given the current fascist climate in America I'm sure it would work.
I wonder how much money we've wasted on this bullshit over the last seven years. Is it vitally important that we hurt this man? If so, can we just have someone kick him in the nuts?
((aside to monoroxyd: when your browser underlines words in red, that means you've spelled them wrong, bright spark.))
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
I seem to remember that US isn't under any obligation to surrender troops to the international courts for war crimes and all that, despite most other countries being so obligated.
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
Exactly. No change.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
No, it's not.
The agreement in question has no validity until both parties sign it. The fact that the Brits signed it is meaningless until and unless the USA also signs it.
Note, by the way, that the Brits may voluntarily follow the agreement, even without the USA becoming a party to the agreement, but that's neither expected nor required.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The fact he used a 56k modem seemed interesting, this is /. after all, ya know, news for nerds. The US obviously does want to hang him (also obvious, that I don't mean literally) because the kind of trouble they have to go through to try to extradite someone like this is not slight in the least, it seems to be more of a political move to intimidate our brothers across the pond by setting precedent, "Hack our computers, and get to spend 50 years in a US jail!" Car analogy does fit, but if you disagree, can you explain how it does not? Even if you were to change the whole "replicate the ipod" bit with "steal the ipod", doesnt extradition and the proposed punishment seem out of proportion? Also, I actually googled to find the interview with him where he says exactly what I stated, though he also says specifically he doesn't think it means there are little green men, just that we have a secret space program. Though, I did'nt follow the source of the interview and therefore it could be a bad one, so that point is up for grabs. So, besides you calling me stupid, (which I often, against my own best intentions, often am), where do your arguments stand now?
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
Half the IRA - including known murderers - were hiding in plain sight in the US at one point.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
My problem is that the extradition treaty that is being used to extradite him is one sided, as the USA have consistently refused to ratify their side.
The UK side needs an immediate change so that no extradition can take place until it becomes bilateral.
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.
'The point is that a great many of the computers he accessed didn't even have password protection. And while that doesn't excuse McKinnon's intrusion, it does explain why the US armed forces are annoyed about this all. McKinnon made them look like idiots, and so they want to make an example of him in return.'
Which is of course the time-honoured response to breaches of inadequate military/government security. Here's Richard Feynman on a fence at Los Alamos:
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/14/2/FeynmanLosAlamos.htm
'One day I discovered that the workmen who lived further out and wanted to come in were too lazy to go around through the gate, and so they had cut themselves a hole in the fence. So I went out the gate, went over to the hole and came in, went out again, and so on, until the sergeant at the gate begins to wonder what's happening. How come this guy is always going out and never coming in? And, of course, his natural reaction was to call the lieutenant and try to put me in jail for doing this. I explained that there was a hole...You see, I was always trying to straighten people out. And so I made a bet with somebody that I could tell about the hole in the fence in a letter, and mail it out. And sure enough, I did. And the way I did it was I said, "You should see the way they administer this place (that's what we were allowed to say). There's a hole in the fence 71 feet away from such and such a place, that's this size and that size, that you can walk through."...Now, what can they do? They can't say to me that there is no such hole? I mean, what are they going to do? It's their own hard luck that there's such a hole. They should fix the hole. So I got that one through.'
By the logic of one recent case, perhaps it's the US admins who failed to password protect the PCs who whould be extradited:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37107291/ns/technology_and_science-security/
for fuck's sake
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.
..stop calling him that.Pentagon remote-admin-password-guesser sounds better.
There's no patch for stupidity
All he needs to do is rub a bit of boot polish on his face.
Here's another case of a guy who was extradited based on clearly fabricated evidence. Alan Johnson should be dangling from a lamp-post.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That comes to the heart of the problem,
All other British extradition treaties only allow extradition outside the EU if a British court is satisfied that the accused will face charges that are crimes in the UK, get a fair trial, etc.
Because of the one sided treaty with the US, the US gets to take anyone it wants, but not the other way around (unlike in the EU).
A lot of people are not happy about the EU agreement either, but that is an inevitable part of the process of building super-state.
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?
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.
Whilst the American DA might want to extradite he or she might waive it in favour of a British prosecution because quite frankly it's cheaper and departmental budgets don't always stretch to extraditions well. Also it would be the British police investigating it from this end and also they'd be the ones who have the evidence file. It's far easier to prosecute someone with evidence gathered under the corresponding legal system. It would also be more likely if the witnesses to the fact you solicited the murder were British (it's difficult to subpoena someone in another country).
An interesting sidenote to this discussion is the Camilla Broe case (the Wikipedia article is poorly written but gives a good overview). In her case it was a drug-related crime, but the circumstances were similar to this one - there was no real question of her guilt, just the fact that the penalties for the crime are much harsher in the US than they are in Denmark. It ended up being a pretty embarassing case, since the Americans ended up dropping the charges on statute of limitations grounds, so the whole affair was completely needless.
From what I have read of UK law interpretation a GROSSLY simplistic overview;
What is it that you have read. I've read a number of judgments of the HoL in the Pinochet case and the OP's explanation seems much closer to the opinions of the Law Lords than yours does. But perhaps you have more recent authority?
Country's [sic.], however, can be seen as legal "persons" in their own right.
But only as against other countries under public international law. You have to be a state, for instance, to have standing before the ICJ.
If a British citizen were to commit a crime in the U.S.: the Brit has essentially committed a crime against the U.S. as a legal person ...
That sounds like complete nonsense to me. Do you have any authority for that claim?
Back to work, peasant.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Most Western countries have taxation treaties. Generally you would not pay US tax on earnings in, for example, a more highly taxed European country - only if you were paying less tax than you would in the US would you pay the balance to the IRS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_treaty#Double_Tax_Relief
By the same thinking line you should be tried in Iran for all your horrendous crimes as defined by the Sharia law.
You know, you are committing an offense against Iranian people just by not believing on the Qur'an!
Therefore, you should be prosecuted, tried and sentenced to death by stoning in an Islamic court.
How does that seem to you?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
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 that was because we Brits didn't understand the concept of an Individual Retirement Account.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
I'd say the solution was to secure the computers beyond the level where an average cat could log in, but what do I know.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
BZZZTTT, WRONG! Australians also have to pay income tax to the Aaustralian tax office even though the don't live there or use any of the services that income tax provides.
No we don't. Foreign income affects your tax _brackets_, but you still only have to pay tax on the income earned in Australia.
If anything, they should be paying him.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
And the whole theatrical production is proof that he actually did find something and they're trying to cover it u
BRB, somebody at the do&^y7
n o c a r r i e r
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Except for recent rules where expats are required to report any foreign bank account with more than $10K and failure to do so can result in serious penalties.
That's why they open multiple bank accounts with 10k in them.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
The physical location of the perpetrator at the time he or she commited the criminal act defines the crime scene
Are you seriously telling me that the place where the dead body fell to the ground, isn't the crime scene?
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
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.
That would be why I wrote "so long as it has an extradition treaty". The UK & US probably don't have an extradition treaty with Thailand for stuff people wrote on their web pages. The UK & US probably do have one with Thailand for murder, with conditions such as no torture, no corporal punishment, and in the UK's case, no death penalty.
The UK has an extradition treaty with the US for hacking NATO computer systems. He hacked a NATO computer system. He's getting extradited. What's the controversy here?
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
That's when they use the SWIFT data they have collected to find one of them, transfer some money to it to put it just above 10k, and arrest you and send you off to prison. Have a nice day.
The real issue comes down to proper punishment, and making sure that those who are wronged have the chance to see "justice done". Now, what is the UK going to do in a trial, since the UK was not the one wronged in this case? That is the problem when you deal with international law, making sure the punishment fits the crime. Hacking or attempting to hack a government computer system is a very serious crime, but it is taken less seriously by those who are not the victims.
So, the UK is an ally, or has been....what do you think the court system in the UK would find proper punishment for hacking into US government computers? What do you think the court system in the USA would think is proper punishment? If he were to hack a Chinese government computer system, do you think the Chinese government might try to execute him for it? Obviously, these are things to consider in international law, but I seriously doubt that those in the UK would think the punishment over here would be unusually severe compared to if roles were reversed.
The UK arrested some guy who allegedly committed an act that's considered criminal by UK laws while being physically present in the UK while committing said act. Why are they even thinking about extraditing him anywhere? It's the UKs job to put the guy on trial and lock him up/fine him if he's found guilty.
The fact that they haven't done so for seven years is simply mind-boggling.
No, they reckon it costs over $700k to check each and every individual computer Gary had access to, to make sure he didn't leave anything on them or change anything. You'd have to be off your nut to just change the passwords after a massive breach, however idiotic the initial breach was.
No. The victim does not get to punish the criminal. That's barbaric and any civilized nation should have moved beyond this kind of sh1t.
Now, what is the UK going to do in a trial, since the UK was not the one wronged in this case?
The UK was "wronged". UK laws were broken, by someone who was physically present in the UK at the time when he was breaking those laws. It's the UKs job to put the guy 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.
700k that's a drop in the bucket, when dealing with government never forget they excel at burning up money with little result, 8 people could easily eat up that in a few months. 2 people doing the actual work of finding Gary 3 auditing the system to figure out what he has accessed (they will go from computer to computer and audit each one so it will take much longer then auditing through a server also the time lost by the user from auditing their computer will be included in the cost) 1 to manage and 2 to fill out the mountains of paper work. It's not that they are fudging the numbers to reach the threshold it's that they are that inefficient.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Too light in whose opinion? Presumably not the majority's in that country.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Gary is fine as long as he doesn't leave his own country. Once he sets foot outside of their jurisdiction he falls under a different jurisdiction. My guess: he will not leave his own country.
The fact that they haven't done so for seven years is simply mind-boggling.
USA's demands block the procedure.
There's nothing like $HOME
A simple Google search shows that the US unanimously ratified the treaty 4 years ago, and has extradited more people to the UK under its terms than the UK has to America.
Sorry to ruin your talking point.
actually the number was much simpler.
I think the relevant threshold was $5k, so they just said.
Yup- $5k damage done in each case.
multiply by n computers.
to get 700k damage.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
Then the UK shouldn't have signed the treaty with the United States.
And this guy shouldn't have done what he did.
I've been in the US legal system for being a dumbass when I was younger, I really got off light in regards to all the stupid things I'd done, I never avoided the punishment and I ended up better in the end.
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.
Federal isn't really PMITA, at least according to acquaintances who have been in State and Federal.
One guy who did a stint for sex crimes on an Indian Reservation (all Felonies on Reservations are dealt with in Federal Court) said his stop over in a State Prison was super scary, all lord of the flies, but once he was transferred to Federal Prison in Kansas it was a very safe and controlled environment.
A co-worker who had prison guarded at a Medium Security Federal Prison in Oregon said the same thing, no one is trying to make trouble generally and he never had any problems.
This guy will likely end up in a minimum security prison, probably on a military base or adjacent to one, as far as "prison" goes, it won't be that bad.
Yes it is illegal in the US but he didn't commit the crime from the US. He committed it in the UK. The UK has similar laws which could be used. The difference is that if a trial happened in the UK, he'd get acquitted because the US would not want it divulged how easy it was to hack into their networks.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
>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
How is it misapplied? Hacking has been used for the act of breaking into computers for as long as I can remember, by all sorts of people, including security professionals.
In fact it seems to be a fancy from just a handful of geeks that these people are referred to as Crackers. I've heard security professionals use the term hacker.
Given that the language is defined by usage, and not by RFC 1392, I'm afraid you just have to accept that the word has come to mean something else. It happens.
Do I believe it's unreasonable for him to face consequences in the US for a crime committed against the US?
You "commit a crime against" some backwards Muslim country every time you post porn online. How would you like be deported to face consequences there?
Which is well and good - so what's the problem with having him tried in UK, then?
A trial took place in California as well. He was found guilty. He skipped out to avoid sentencing.
FYI: There is no default windows password.
Q.
Quite naturally. The UK does have laws against such things.
You send the criminals to the other country to be tried and sentenced in order to send a message to the other government that, "Even though this person committed a crime against you, it was not supported by our government and we bear you no ill will."
And prosecuting and putting said person in prison will not do that? I'm not following here. Usually, prosecuting someone and locking them away is a standard way of a government saying "We don't approve of what you did.".
There is some sort of group-think amongst slashdot readers that computer crimes are not crimes at all and should readily be forgiven.
No, but they guy's been in jail for a couple of years now without trial, for something that he could easily be prosecuted for in the UK.
I am saying that he is hardly innocent, and that, at the very least, the UK should give him a token jail sentence as a gesture of good will towards the U.S.
He's been locked up for a couple of frickin' years now. If they put him on trial today and give hime a "token" jail sentence, he'll be out tomorrow for time already served.
In most U.S. jurisdictions leaving the front door open makes the OWNER guilty of the crime, ...
Er, citation please?
Phiwum's law: anyone that names an obvious law after himself and then puts it in his own sig is just pathetic.
Two and a half. Less time served on remand, which includes curfew/home detention orders.
No, it cost seven hundred grand to track, verify and fix the damage done. He broke into 97 networks. Let's pretend that there are an average of 100 computers accessible from the node that he compromised. That's 9700 machines. Now pretend that it takes an IT tech and average of 1 day to verify that each machine is secure / clean up if it is not. That's 8 hours for each machine: 97 * 100 * 8 = 77600 man hours. At only $10 an hour you get over seven hundred thousand dollars worth of time taken up fixing the mess.
Those numbers are more than likely inflated for the number of machines requiring cleaning but it's more than likely that a team of much higher paid techs / consultants had to spend a good amount of time checking and fixing the networks. And we're not factoring in lost productivity while all this is going on. Unfortunately, if you break into a network you create a whole lot of work as is is now untrusted and needs to be made trusted again.
I think McKinnon is a harmless idiot but he knew what he was getting himself into and the penalties for doing so. I'd prefer my tax money (UK) not to be spent holding his trial and potentially imprisoning him here for the US, cold hearted as that may sound.
In fairness, I don't actually know of a genuine Australian who drinks Fosters on a regular basis.
Tomorrow, I may eat another house plant
Or more accurately, the judge decides whether what you are alleged to have done constitutes a crime. The jury - if there is one, and there probably would be in this sort of case - decides whether you actually committed the crime.
Tomorrow, I may eat another house plant
"bad security is no security, therefore he did not break any security"
false. there is no 'it was easy for my there for it's not breaking in' clause.
" he needs to be put on trial in his home country."
the depends, and that's what extradition is for. Bring someone into the country who broke the law in the country.
Now the details are stickier, but your premise is false.
"..., the U.S. has shown to have completely no respect for human rights..."
WTF crazy as world do you live in? Yeah there has been problems but to say no respect is stupid. Plus it in no way applies to this situation.
" I can imagine he'll just disappear once he enters the U.S."
You are a complete loon.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
" they shoudl have done!
irrelevant.
And no, those costs arn't fabricated. The problem here is you have no idea what is involved. You are so stupid you probably think in involved some guy walking over and changing the password.
Moron.
"ANd uner the one sided, inane extradition treaty you cannot fight this until after you have left your home country behind..."
which makes sense. How can you go through the process and not be here?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Uh, yeah, that's exactly what I said. Sorry if I haven't been clear.
I think it's the "there" that confused you, and it's entirely my fault: being French, it was obvious to me that "there" refered to California, but I overlooked the fact that it wasn't necessarily obvious for everyone.
But yeah, that's why Polanski was never tried in France for this affair: because of the ne bis in idem principle.
If it weren't for that, he could have been tried, even though the facts took place in California.
This is linked to the impossibility for France to extradite its own citizens: if the alleged facts are punishable by French law, then French jurisdiction takes charge.
And finally, that's why the principle of ne bis idem applies even when two different sovereignties are involved: provisions about this are usually included in extradition treaties. Overall, it favors judicial cooperation, but it's not always easy.
There's nothing like $HOME
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.
The bomb is planted in Times Square, New York.
You trigger it from a cell phone in London.
Who has jurisdiction on the charge of murder?
The answer has to be the state of New York - otherwise you could potentially escape prosecution for any crime committed by remote control from the high seas or across a state or international border.
no, not in the UK....probably in international court
www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
Eh, that's an overly simplified argument based on incorrect facts. The trial of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi (the man convicted of the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing) was held in the Netherlands, albeit under Scot's Law, a compromise reached based on the lack of an extradition agreement. However, the package containing the bomb which caused the explosion of Pan Am Flight 103 was initially routed into the baggage system in Malta and passed through Frankfurt. So, in that case, the crime was not tried under German or Maltese law where the bomb was initially routed, but under the law of the country in which it exploded. This seems to not help your argument and appears to have been prosecuted in a manner that is the exact opposite of what you propose.
Incidentally, for anyone wondering whatever happened to that dude (I know I was), after being released on compassionate grounds of having three months to live or less, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi is still alive.
I don't know about Australia, but if I correctly understood the information which came with my UK passport application our consular services are paid for specifically by taxes on passports. I'm not sure whether it adds up.
(As a point of interest, do US ex-pats get to vote in US elections? Just thinking of a certain revolutionary slogan...)
Australian residents have to pay, and someone gone for 5 years (for example, that's not some cutoff point, just an illustration of a long time that can still be covered by residency) could still be considered a resident. But non-residents don't have to pay Australian income tax. US citizens do have to pay. There is no concept in the US of non-resident citizens. Residency (for citizens) in the US is a state issue, and citizenship is a national issue, so the issues aren't related directly.
There is a clear and legal concept of severing residency without severing citizenship for Australia. There is no way to do that for the US. The only way to stop paying taxes is to renounce citizenship.
Learn to love Alaska
Or if you make more than an amount somewhere in the high $80k range. Or, in some cases where you have US income that isn't taxed outside the US (you rent out the house you left behind) then you have to pay taxes on that income to the US, depending on your situation. And good luck finding someone outside the US that's good with the US rules. They exist, but they are few and far between, and certainly not cheap.
You *will* be filing double-returns for the rest of your life (even if you don't owe taxes, you must file to retain that status), and often paying double-tax (or at least separate and incompatible tax) for the rest of your life. And the US is the only industrialized country with those rules.
Learn to love Alaska
Nope.
Eritrean ex-pats have to pay, I think, 2% of their income to the government back home. This isn't really enforceable but if you ever want to go back and haven't kept up with your payments, they'll stop you entering the country. Thing is, most of them pay it willingly because it's such a poor country and they want to do their bit to make things better.
That's because Fosters is Australian for horse piss.
I hate when people make generalizations about the US judicial system (probably based on movies/television, & having no basis in actual fact). Not all prisons in the US are PMITA (especially for non-violent crimes). He'd probably end up in a country-club (minimum security, populated by other non-violent offenders) prison, and that's only if he was convicted (his lawyer could argue diminished faculties, for instance). Just because the maximum possible sentence is 50 years, that doesn't mean he'd be sentenced to 50 years. Multiple charges could run concurrently, or charges could get dropped if the prosecutor decides there's not enough evidence, etc. Even in the unlikely case he was sentenced to 50 years, he could appeal his sentence & get it reduced or even overturned. Disclaimer: IANAL, but the above are things that can be researched with a minimum amount of effort.
I agree with you that there are mechanisms in place that are intended to avoid double-taxation. My point though is that, despite these mechanisms, in practice (at least in my experience) you still end up paying more than the greater individual tax rate, i.e. more than you would pay if you were just declaring everything in one or the other of the two countries.
This space up for sale.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aEgU_TIgfK1U&refer=home
YES! 1000 times Yes. If I murder someone in London and drop the dead body in New York, where do you think the crime scene is ?
(Hint: It's not New York.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234669/Twice-suspects-extradited-U-S--fair-Gary-McKinnon.html
Ministers have always insisted the 2003 Extradition Act is fair and balanced. But figures slipped out by a Home Office minister last night under cover of the Pre-Budget Report show that between 2004 and 2008, 68 people were sent to the U.S. while only 34 people were sent to the UK.
I guess my google search could be wrong but I couldn't find anything to suggest more americans have been sent to the UK.
http://extradition.org.uk/ a couple facing 98 years for legally exporting chemicals that were later used to manufacture crystal meth. (The back story on this seems quite interesting especially the part where an appeal can be made to the court of european rights but only after scotland has granted extradition and thus making the appeal impossible).
mind who needs extradition
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2982640.ece
AMERICA has told Britain that it can "kidnap" British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.
A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.
Finally in an attempt to be balanced I found some american (or is it irish) opposition to the treaty.
http://www.irishfreedomcommittee.net/IFC_INFO/CAMPAIGNS/USUK_EXTRADITIONTREATY/extradition_treaty_ACTION.htm
This document [Treaty Doc. 108-23] -- signed under cover of great secrecy on March 31st, 2003 by US Attorney General John Ashcroft, and Britain's Home Secretary David Blunkett-- permanently erases America's symbolic image as a land where the oppressed of the world can escape to as a haven of freedom from foreign oppression.
This treaty will make possible the extradition and imprisonment of any American deemed to be "anti-Britain" or opposed to British military rule in Ireland. Under the terms of this Extradition Treaty, American citizens will be eligible for extradition to Britain to stand trial without proof of guilt and without judicial review. There is no statute of limitations to these offenses, which can be lodged on the word of a sole witness. The document at first glance upholds, but then proceeds to decimate, the political exemption clause; a cornerstone of America's diplomatic relations since Thomas Jefferson refused the extradition of an opponent of the French Revolution. This document is by far the most extreme US Treaty yet and will have drastic effect on any person who has ever spoken out against British human rights abuses at any time in their lives.
Ok thas my google search results , please show yours.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Thats why you put amounts in things not legally considered a bank account under the letter of the law.
I am sure there are things you can invest in that are not considered a bank account but which have very little risk of loosing money.
Because you should be able to disprove the need for extradition in the place that you are residing? It is that country on whose soil you are situated that should have the right to make the decision to send you onward or not. They are more of an Impartial third party in the whole thing than either yourself or the country wishing to pursue the extradition.
All countries have legal process. Being moved to another country with a different process should be considered based on the local laws of the country the person resides in. They should decide whether it is fair and equitable to send their constituent to face a foreign court for whatever reason.
Cheers, Chris
Get it right, mate. It's kangaroo piss.
>>>
In the US, he faces fifty years in your oh so popular Federal PMITA prison system.
>>>
How 'bout, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Or were there Delta ninjas forcing him to do so at gun point. Man up! Pussy down.
The treaty in question is ridiculously biased - it was brought in by Tony Blair at the height of the Bush fellatio period. British subjects can be extradited to the US for torture on the unsupported word of the US terror police - needless to say there is no reciprocal arrangement!
It is against UK human rights law to extradite people to countries that practice torture and imprisonment without trial. So until Gitmo is shut down he will never actually get to the plane due to last minute injunctions.
I seriously object to my comments being marked as troll! This was not trolling. It's a serious point. It's hardly reasonable to say that there's one rule if it happens in the US, and another for everywhere else. Yes, I know that there were/are wars in both places, but there _have_ been deaths that were murder rather than battlefield deaths, and US citizens have not been held to account in courts of the countries where the actions took place.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-exposes-video-o_n_525569.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/12/iraq.soldiers.killed/
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/world/asia/08blackwater.html
Which is to say that there is no absolute rule that a person should be tried in the jurisdiction of the place under which the action had effect.
That's why they open multiple bank accounts with 10k in them.
You won't even be able to buy property that way in many countries with transactions required to go through banks. On the other hand, it is why Panama is one of the world's largest offshore banking centers. A lot of people buy (and subsequently sell) land in Panama just to launder money. It's a center for money laundering for Colombia, too. Panamanians call the skyscrapers going up all over Panama City "The Cocaine Towers".
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
As I said I believe the consequences should fit the crime. In my opinion 10+ years does not fit the crime committed, that however is a failing of the courts, not of the extradition treaty.
I don't think you can make that comparison. If someone posts porn online and it is legal in the country where said porn is hosted the Muslim country in your example has no jurisdiction.
In this case he actively hacked into government servers on US soil. A closer example would be if you hacked into said Muslim country's servers and posted the porn there in which case you have committed a crime against them.
I don't think you can make that comparison. If someone posts porn online and it is legal in the country where said porn is hosted the Muslim country in your example has no jurisdiction.
In this case he actively hacked into government servers on US soil. A closer example would be if you hacked into said Muslim country's servers and posted the porn there in which case you have committed a crime against them.
That's precisely my point. What if I post porn on an Iranian forum (no hacking, just posting)? What if I didn't know the forum is being hosted on a server in Iran? Do you seriously think it would be prudent to extradite then?
Or how about indecent exposure? Say, a Canadian in Alberta goes to the U.S.-Canada border, and waves his bare dick at Montana on the other side of it; a 17 year old American girl is watching from there. In Canada, this would be merely indecent exposure, as the age of consent in 16. In Montana (where age of consent is 18), I'd imagine that would amount to sexual assault on a minor. What crime was committed, and which court should handle the case?
Brilliant. YMMD.