America Versus the UFO Hacker

Rob writes "Gary McKinnon, still suffering from Asperger's syndrome, depression, anxiety, and panic attacks, has one last chance to avoid extradition from the UK to the US to face charges of hacking into NASA and Pentagon computers in search of information on UFOs. Will the new UK government keep its word and help him avoid a savage punishment? The New Statesman has a survey of the history and McKinnon's prospects."

Comments

Aliens!

[InsertWittyNameHere]

Just the fact that the US is pushing so hard for this makes people believe that the US government has UFOs and aliens.

Re:Aliens!

[Jeng]

Like the US would have control over any aliens that stop by.

Re:Aliens!

[Tekfactory]

New Mexico has an Alien problem, Arizona will profile and interrogate any little green men, or Grays they find wandering around, and believe to be in the country illegally.

Re:Aliens!

[SplicerNYC]

What the U.S. government probably has is 60+ years worth of wasting taxpayer dollars on black projects that went nowhere. I've come to believe that flying saucers were a cover story and false hysteria created by the government as a way to both deflect the truth and create a system where observers could be dismissed as kooks.

Re:Aliens!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I'd go with the "embarrassment/reprisal" hypothesis, myself.

The DoD's networks are supposed to be all secure and advanced and stuff. Getting hacked by a single sad-case foreign national, acting without support, makes them look pathetic.

When made to look pathetic, those with power generally seek reprisal against their enemies.

Frankly, the DoD was lucky to have been hacked by him. He is largely harmless, and watching how he got in was probably instructive, to some degree. They really ought to spend less time hounding him, and more time thinking about the fact that certain other hackers are much less harmless, and substantially less likely to be turned over for a stay in PMITA prison by their host governments...

Re:Aliens!

[flaming error]

I'm not sure Arizona thought this through - the little buggers are expensive to deport.

Re:Aliens!

[X0563511]

While the unfortunate truth is more likely that they simply wish to "discourage" others from looking into said servers without authorization.

The issue is the "... charges of hacking into NASA and Pentagon computers in search of information on UFOs.".

His reasons don't matter. He didn't have authorization to access those resources. Period.

Re:Aliens!

[Jeng]

I thought it was the gray's who got that bill passed?

Re:Aliens!

[Em Emalb]

I argued this point the last time it came up and was modded down due to the excuses that were readily available:

"He has Aspergers"

"He wasn't trying to do anything criminal"
etc, etc.

I agree with you 100%. It doesn't matter what medical conditions he has, it doesn't matter WHY he was doing it, he hacked government servers.

That's the bottom line.

Re:Aliens!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why deport them? They taste like chicken.

Re:Aliens!

[LEMONedIScream]

it doesn't matter WHY he was doing it, he hacked foreign government servers.

There, fixed that for you! (Or should that really read "US" government servers?)

Re:Aliens!

[Anonymous Coward]

The DoD's networks are supposed to be all secure and advanced and stuff. Getting hacked by a single sad-case foreign national, acting without support, makes them look pathetic.

As far as we know from this story, the actual DoD networks _are_ secure and stuff. Sites in the *.mil domain are _not_ secure systems from the DoD point of view. The actual secure networks they use for classified material aren't even connected to the Internet that you know.

Re:Aliens!

[Em Emalb]

yes, you're correct. Although if he did hack local government servers the same statement should apply.

Re:Aliens!

[blair1q]

That's funny. That's just what they said about you.

Re:Aliens!

[vlm]

I'm not sure Arizona thought this through - the little buggers are expensive to deport.

Sitting around, waiting 30 years, then visiting AZ would have saved ET a heck of a lot of fooling around with "speak -n- spells" and all that junk.

Re:Aliens!

[confused one]

I've been told that many of the UFO sightings in the midwest and mountain states during the '80's were F-117's (they flew for a decade before the public was told they existed). I've been told that a few Airforce folks had a few laughs about this. I suspect that, in general, you're at least partially right.

Re:Aliens!

[Sir_Lewk]

Yeah, but SpaceX is working on that.

Re:Aliens!

[vlm]

I thought it was the gray's who got that bill passed?

Gray... hairs?

Re:Aliens!

[AltairDusk]

Frankly, the DoD was lucky to have been hacked by him. He is largely harmless, and watching how he got in was probably instructive, to some degree. They really ought to spend less time hounding him, and more time thinking about the fact that certain other hackers are much less harmless, and substantially less likely to be turned over for a stay in PMITA prison by their host governments...

Someone breaks into your house but doesn't take anything of value. You would think that's ok because the intrusion was largely harmless?

The fact is he hacked into government servers he had no business accessing. We can argue motives and harm done all we want but it doesn't change the fact a crime was committed.

Re:Aliens!

[MikeMacK]

No, no, New Mexico has a spaceport now...

Re:Aliens!

[elrous0]

We keep them in a secret zoo next to the unicorns and the last surviving Oompa-Loompa.

Re:Aliens!

[Ragzouken]

Ethics is all about the motives!

Re:Aliens!

[masterwit]

Having exp on what you are saying, the real dirt is all on a closed system, and the lower level security has potential for flaws, its just the way it is...I mean the number one flaw to security is thinking that any security can be 100% effective, but as you said:

single sad-case foreign national

Yes, that's a bit embarrassing haha :)

On another note, however, perhaps this would be an even better solution: the NSA should "hire" him to hack China: just give a lot of "subtle" hints that all the UFO's are over there. Or start classifying fake material that forces him to "double check" their information. Paranoid people can be really determined hard workers...

Re:Aliens!

[vlm]

It doesn't matter what medical conditions he has, it doesn't matter WHY he was doing it, he hacked government servers.

For at least some crimes, motive and state of mind is very important for prosecution. Research the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder, etc. Not saying that matters in this scenario, but generally it has considerable legal importance.

Since at least some of his medical conditions could be considered mental illnesses, that will probably be his defense. Someone whom has anxiety attacks and believes the only way to defend himself is to break into the pentagon computers, will probably end up, after staggering government legal expenses, in the nut house until he's cured by medication and given supervised release.

Regardless of how it turns out, I'm not seeing any result that could be useful for the US govt, or would have a sensible cost/benefit analysis result.

1) From a PR perspective, I suppose jailing other countries crazy people is better than us bombing them, marginally, but not much. If the US forced his govt to put him into a mental health institution near his home, maybe that would have been better PR.

2) From a network security perspective its a negative because we're setting a precedent of trading sloppy procedures for legal attacks.

3) From a conspiracy theory perspective, this is absolute proof the USGovt has proof of aliens and UFOs. I suppose that distracts them from the real conspiracies, but its not much of a win.

4) It makes his govt look like a US lapdog, not that theres anyone left in the world that didn't know that already, but it still looks bad.

Re:Aliens!

[AGMW]

The fact is he hacked into government servers he had no business accessing. We can argue motives and harm done all we want but it doesn't change the fact a crime was committed.

... and as I understand it, he's admitted to it. What he doesn't deserve is some show trial and 70+ years in a US jail for it because he's apparently a threat to the US's security. Did I read somewhere that one of the passwords he managed to crack was ... "password"? There ya go ... now I've told the world what one of the US Security Services favourite passwords is so I guess I can look forward to an extraordinary rendition trip somewhere scenic for a water-boarding holiday!

Re:Aliens!

[RDW]

'The fact is he hacked into government servers he had no business accessing. We can argue motives and harm done all we want but it doesn't change the fact a crime was committed.'

Though of course when the data is something REALLY important (like a movie or an mp3) it's the admin who failed to secure the system who should be punished:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37107291/ns/technology_and_science-security/

Re:Aliens!

[hedwards]

That's actually a known fact. The UFO talk was mainly a cover for a period when the US was sending balloons over the Soviet Union to photograph. UFOs were just a convenient way of diverting attention from that real activity to something that couldn't have anything to do with us.

http://steveblank.com/2010/01/28/balloon-wars/

Re:Aliens!

[X0563511]

Extradition treaty .

You're right. They asked for it, and are (trying to, probably will it seems) get the jurisdiction. Case is not closed.

Re:Aliens!

[MakinBacon]

No, Grays as in Asgard.

Re:Aliens!

[henrik.falk]

Do you think that the U.S. is the only country in the world that have laws against this sort of thing? The U.K. have their own laws about these sort of things, and the real question right now is; why shouldn't they be used on a U.K. citizen? U.S. flag waving aside, countries don't usually extradite their citizens easily. Specially not when the sentencing scale is WAY of balance.

Re:Aliens!

[Anonymous Coward]

We're at war! He's a terrist! We got nucular weapons in thar! Be afraid! Damnit!

Re:Aliens!

[PinkyGigglebrain]

Actually from what I've read most of the charges do seem a bit trumped up. The DoD is claiming millions of dollars in damages related to the "hack", which was little more than guessing some passwords. The big thing in Brittan is that if he was tried locally, as most legal experts seem to think should be the case, he might get a few weeks jail (time served), a fine and probation with restrictions on his use of computers during that time. The charges the DoD have brought against him carry minimum sentences of around 20 years per count.

Another factor is that he was in Brittan when he committed the offenses and their are some jurisdictional issues in the case as well. Add in that the US is trying to use an extradition treaty that basically allows the signatories to say "we want these people, we will not provide any evidence they are really guilty of anything, send them asap", the UK Parliament has ratified the treaty but the US Congress has not so its a bit unilateral giving the US power to extradite and prosecute a British citizen without giving any evidence as to their guilt.

Plus, the DoD has not guaranteed he would be tried in a civilian court. IIRCC they have indicated he might face a military court.

No one involved has claimed he is innocent, the question is whether the punishment will be Just.

Re:Aliens!

[brainiac ghost1991]

Well... seeing as you lot haven't bothered ratifying our side of the extradition treaties (and so won't give us someone if we asked) why should we bother with our side. Also, the punishment you're proposing is excessive compared to the punishment he'd get over here!

Re:Aliens!

[AnAdventurer]

That's a valid point, how will the great state of Arizona [sic] know where to deport who? Will they just send them all across the border to Mexico? I don't think Mexico will go for that.

Re:Aliens!

[dbIII]

Tell me then why he should get such harsh treatment while commercial spyware companies do not?
It's easy to work out which one is a greater threat to national security and it's not the UFO guy in the UK.

Re:Aliens!

[labnet]

I'd go with the "embarrassment/reprisal" hypothesis, myself.

Exactly. It's a smokescreen. If a nerdy kid can hack DOD, imagine what nefarious organised governments/private companies are doing.
The DOD should send the kid a thank you card, then go arrest their abysmal security contractors.

Re:Aliens!

[tnk1]

Tell me then why he should get such harsh treatment while commercial spyware companies do not?
It's easy to work out which one is a greater threat to national security and it's not the UFO guy in the UK.

Commercial spyware companies *should* get the same sentence or worse, but that's another story entirely. That's the real injustice here.

Re:Aliens!

[erik33045]

I fas as I know to be tried for a crime in the US, You have to try the person where the crime was committed. Constitution and whatnot.

Re:Aliens!

[Geoffrey.landis]

Actually from what I've read most of the charges do seem a bit trumped up. The DoD is claiming millions of dollars in damages related to the "hack"

According to TFA, they are saying that the break-in "incurred costs of $800,000."

That's not "millions," sorry.

And, since he apparently admits to the break-in, I don't see how the charges "seem a bit trumped up."

Re:Aliens!

[shutdown -p now]

However, you can't commit crimes across national borders using the Internet and then expect to use those national borders as a shield.

You should keep that in mind next time you post any porn pics online, as you're likely commiting a crime "across national border" of Afghanistan or some other similarly advanced country.

Re:Aliens!

[gnasher719]

According to TFA, they are saying that the break-in "incurred costs of $800,000."

Which is a blatant lie. His break-in wasn't what caused the cost. What caused the cost was that when some British idiot managed to break into military computers looking for information about UFOs, the military figured out that these computers were wide open to attacks by real criminals, and had to spend $800,000 to secure them. That was money that needed to be spent anyway, and they are lucky that the first person to break in was looking for UFOs and not for something else.

The guys problem is that he made the US military look like idiots, and they don't like that. That is his real crime, showing to the world that the US military IT is run by a bunch of muppets, and even though there is no official law against that, it is one of the worst crimes he could have committed.

Re:Aliens!

[X0563511]

I don't know. Perhaps you should take it up with your government then?

Re:Aliens!

[Ash Vince]

The fact is he hacked into government servers he had no business accessing. We can argue motives and harm done all we want but it doesn't change the fact a crime was committed.

Calling what he did hacking is joke, he found DoD machines where the admin password was blank. This is what was so embarrassing, he showed just what anyone who has worked with DoD IT staff already knows, that they used to get the bottom of the barrel with the best going to the NSA, CIA or more likely private industry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon

Re:Aliens!

[couchslug]

"3) From a conspiracy theory perspective, this is absolute proof the USGovt has proof of aliens and UFOs. I suppose that distracts them from the real conspiracies, but its not much of a win."

It can't hurt! After all, aliens and UFOs are the ideal misdirection because people so hornily, desperately want to BELIEVE in them.

BTW, I was amused when we got former F-117 maintainers in our squadron after the program ceased to be Black. They told us that "UFO" sightings were common when they flew, which was of course at night. Better the chumps lick up this alien fetish (they'll react to this post as an attempt at misdirecting THEM) and we keep the night sky a mystery.

Re:Aliens!

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

You should keep that in mind next time you post any porn pics online, as you're likely commiting a crime "across national border" of Afghanistan or some other similarly advanced country.
I'll keep that in mind when I post porn pics to a computer I have hacked into illegally in Afghanistan.

Re:Aliens!

[PinkyGigglebrain]

My bad. I must have mixed up the amounts from another article or it was in one of the comments. A key factor is that McKinon didn't cause the damage directly, it was what the DoD spent after the fact to lock down their "secure" network.

Thanks for the correction. $800,000 or millions, either way it sounds like the DoD has played up the amount to justify charging McKinon with some pretty nasty stuff.

Re:Aliens!

[adamofgreyskull]

Someone breaks into your house but doesn't take anything of value. You would think that's ok because the intrusion was largely harmless?

No offence, but what? "breaks into"?

If your home is broken into, it is a personal violation and can be a traumatic event, even if nothing was taken, that is not under debate. This man trespassed on a computer network, owned by a government. If a SysAdmin truly feels traumatised by someone trespassing on a computer network he's paid to keep safe then he shouldn't be a SysAdmin for the DoD

This is nothing like B&E, it's like trespass. It's comparable to a man trespassing on a lawn at the Pentagon that is being kept safe by an incompetent security guard. Does that security guard feel as violated as a B&E victim, or does he feel embarrassed and frustrated when he eventually catches him? Trespass is a crime, as is doing so in the context of computer networks, but if you're so petty that you would subject a man to years behind bars with murderers and rapists for doing it, you're a sick, disgusting little puppy indeed. As are the prosecutors in the U.S. who are forcing this issue, and the previous Labour government who didn't intervene in this completely and utterly farcical situation.

Re:Aliens!

[Nazlfrag]

Rubbish. I can see Outer Space from my backyard!

Re:Aliens!

[LingNoi]

If the UK had prosecuted him there (which is what should have happened), then none of this would be necessary.

This isn't true. The US has been pushing hard to extradite him for years. They DON'T want him to go to jail in the UK which is what McKinnon WANTS. The guy would rather go to jail in the UK then one of your rape prisons for decades, what a surprise!

Re:Aliens!

[LingNoi]

I agree with you 100%. It doesn't matter what medical conditions he has, it doesn't matter WHY he was doing it, he hacked government servers.

That's the bottom line.

No he didn't The machines he accessed had no password. He logged in to foreign government servers that he shouldn't have accessed.

If the username/password is admin/password then it was only a matter of time until someone did this. Either way he shouldn't be extradited simply because Americans are too damn stupid to look after their own computers from a retarded script kiddy.

Re:Aliens!

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the norm was to prosecute, send to prison, then hire them as a security expert.

Re:Aliens!

[LingNoi]

Except no one ever gets extradited out of the US so I don't think anyone in the UK government would give a shit.

Re:Aliens!

[Cyberllama]

The costs of 800k is the trumped up part. Suggesting that he caused 800k worth of damage is silly. The 800k is what it cost them to secure their network. They realized their network wasn't secure as a result of his breach but he did not MAKE their network insecure. They *should* have had to pay that 800k all along, but blame him for ruining their happy ignorance of needed security measures.

It's silly.

Aspergers, Depression and everything else are note excuses for illegal behavior. These things did not prevent him from knowing better. That said, the punishment should fit the crime. The crime was mostly harmless. His "real" crime is simply embarrassing the government and for that they want to make an example out of him.

So while I can see the side that says "he's guilty he should pay" and agree, I'm also keenly aware that the price that the US government wants him to pay will almost certainly far exceed the magnitude of his crime. With that in mind, it's far better that a disinterested 3rd party (like the UK) try the case and punish him. After all, if the US government is both victim and prosecutor, isn't that sort of a conflict of interests?

Re:Aliens!

[Cyberllama]

Nobody is arguing that a crime wasn't committed. To the contrary: everybody keeps harping on that particular strawman as if establishing that he committed a crime is the end of the story.

The truth is that the harm done is an important thing to consider; in fact, it's the most important thing. It dictates whether or not the crime rises to a level worthy of extradition. Since this is a discussion about whether or not he should be extradited, this discussion is transitively a discussion on how much harm was done by his crime.

Yes, he committed a crime. That's not not really in dispute.

Yes, he has Asperger's. That's not really relevant.

The only thing that matters is the severity of his crime and the extent of damages caused. I personally think that the 800k number is total bullshit. It's a number invented by adding up the costs of securing a network that should have been secured in the first place. It's "damages" caused by spending money that should have been spent years ago. I mean, ffs, he guessed that your fucking password was "password".

There's no reason why this warrants extradition or the ridiculously trumped up charges against him. He should be tried in the UK, get the appropriate slap on the wrist, and move on with his life. Graffiti artists do more property damage than this guy -- he just happened to embarrass the wrong people.

Re:Aliens!

[pipedwho]

BTW, I was amused when we got former F-117 maintainers in our squadron after the program ceased to be Black. They told us that "UFO" sightings were common when they flew, which was of course at night.

Nothing unexpected about that. They were flying around at night in unusual aircraft that couldn't be identified. Just because someone reports a 'UFO', doesn't mean they automatically assume it's of alien origin.

Re:Aliens!

[westlake]

Since at least some of his medical conditions could be considered mental illnesses, that will probably be his defense.

In the federal system, it's become a stiff uphill climb:

Congress passed revisions in the defense embodied in the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, which reads:

"It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense."

The "irresistible impulse" is not a defense.

Under separate legislation, the burden of proof shifted to the defendant - to produce "clear and convincing evidence" of his incapacity and the expert witness is not permitted to lead the jury by expressing his own opinion. THE JOHN HINCKLEY TRIAL & ITS EFFECT ON THE INSANITY DEFENSE

1) From a PR perspective, I suppose jailing other countries crazy people is better than us bombing them

The only message the US gives a damn about is warning would-be hackers is that the hammer will come down if you break into its systems.

4) It makes his govt look like a US lapdog

When you are out of the government, defending McKinnon is easy. But the London tabloids won't be kind if the US refuses extradition of the UK's next highly politicized "fugitive."

Re:Aliens!

[Zancarius]

New Mexico has an Alien problem, Arizona will profile and interrogate any little green men, or Grays they find wandering around, and believe to be in the country illegally.

Yes, but at least if they come here to NM, we'll give them driver's licenses!

Re:Aliens!

[Zancarius]

... and as I understand it, he's admitted to it. What he doesn't deserve is some show trial and 70+ years in a US jail for it because he's apparently a threat to the US's security.

While I don't condone his actions, it's sad to consider that he may face a harsher sentence than a murderer/rapist otherwise would, isn't it?

Now, before anyone calls me out on the statement I quoted above jesting about the length of imprisonment: yes, I know he's unlikely to face that many years. In fact, he probably won't face much time at all, if he's even extradited. However, given the ridiculous state of the US judicial system, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

National security is important, but I'm afraid that there may be more interest in making an example of him than actually doling out justice. Besides, I'd be inclined to suggest that the person who ought to be up on charges is the idiot who thought up such a simple (and obvious) password, if that is indeed true.

Re:Aliens!

[TheQuantumShift]

Which is exactly what they want you to think! As long as you're looking for aliens, you're not looking into who really committed 9/11 and so on! Unless they knew you'd know that they wanted you to think that! But since they know what books you check out at the library, they know that you've read The Princess Bride, and would therefore be in a position to know that you knew that they knew that you knew that that's what they wanted you to think!

Re:Aliens!

[dropadrop]

It doesn't matter what medical conditions he has, it doesn't matter WHY he was doing it, he hacked government servers.

That would kind of depend on the country you are living in. As far as I'm aware at least here in Finland WHY you did something will aways affect the judgment you end up getting. Sometimes your conditions can get you a smaller judgment, sometimes your motivation will affect it, sometimes lack of regret will make things worse.

I'm kind of assuming this is ONE of the reasons why different crimes have such a large scale between the minimum and maximum punishment.

I also don't know how important it should be here (especially since the UK and US are in quite close cooperation), but he did not hack his own governments servers, they where a foreign nations governments servers.

Re:Aliens!

[dbIII]

Here it is a very disproportionate response. In one case it is being dealt with at rarified and stupidly expensive diplomatic heights, and the other case which is a current and future threat to national security and commercial operations is being ignored.
It's about getting a head on a stick to show that the warriors are strong instead of a well measured approach to a threat.
The harshness is all about him being exposed to action without a trial. You should have noticed the entire argument is about extradition with no legal recourse at all at the UK end, which doesn't seem to be appropriate treatment even if he is guilty.

Re:Aliens!

[L4t3r4lu5]

You're defending the idea that he may get 50 years in Federal prison for, to use your analogy (with a slight modification), walking into your house when the door was unlocked and having a look around? The nutcase who shot and killed a doctor got 50 years!

I can't understand why you think this is in any way proportional.

Re:Aliens!

[redscare2k4]

Someone breaks into your house but doesn't take anything of value. You would think that's ok because the intrusion was largely harmless?

The fact is he hacked into government servers he had no business accessing. We can argue motives and harm done all we want but it doesn't change the fact a crime was committed.

If someone breaks into your house cos you left the door and windows wide open and steals nothing, any sane person would consider himself lucky and from that day on remember to close the goddam doors.

Re:Aliens!

[Quantumstate]

He isn't trying to avoid being prosecuted for this case. He is trying to have the case heard in the UK on the basis that he will get a fairer hearing and a more reasonable sentence. The US government is trying to get him extradited on the basis that he caused millions of dollars of damage. This claim seems ridiculous because it is based on the cost of securing their system, as far as I have heard he did not modify the system, he just read some files.

As an analogy is is like you not having a lock on the front door, then having someone walk in and not do any damage, but then you decide you want $large sum in damages to hire a security consultant and get a lock fitted on the door.

Re:Aliens!

[ConfusedVorlon]

He is quite happy to admit guilt and serve a reasonable sentence.

At the time, under UK law - the max sentence for this kind of crime was 6 months.

but the US is getting all shouty and screaming terrorist, so they are threatening him with 70 years.

If their original charges had been more proportionate then
a) It probably wouldn't have hit the threshold for extradition
b) if it had, then he'd probably be much more relaxed about pleading guilty and doing (say) 6 months in a low security prison

back to your analogy; that burglar who broke into your hypothetical house and didn't steal anything.
I suspect we both agree that it was more of an invasion of your privacy than if he broke into your servers.

Would 70 years be an appropriate sentence for the hypothetical burglar?

Re:Aliens!

[dave420]

No, the $800k is what it costs the DoD to ensure he didn't leave anything on any of the computers he had access to. Just because it didn't seem like he left anything on the network, they can't take that at face value and just change the password and go about their business. They have to check each and every computer he touched, or could have touched.

Re:Aliens!

[moronoxyd]

He accessed computers he had no right to.
Yes, that IS a crime.

It doesn't matter whether he was guessing passwords or ran a brute force attack or what not.

Re:Aliens!

[eyendall]

Motives are very important: that is why we have judges. There are no absolute rights and wrongs.

Re:Aliens!

[RandomFactor]

It isn't that expensive to deport, and the system is much more secure afterwards.

Re:Aliens!

[imakemusic]

That depends. Sure, he might not cause any trouble by himself but I can't imagine it would be too hard for someone to kidnap him and use his skills for their own nefarious purposes. Just a thought.

Re:Aliens!

[imakemusic]

It's more like a man trespassing on a lawn at the Pentagon that is being kept safe by a gate with the code 12345.

Re:Aliens!

[tehcyder]

We can argue motives and harm done all we want but it doesn't change the fact a crime was committed.

If I am caught 1 mph over the speed limit, I have committed a crime, that doesn't mean I should spend twenty years in prison for it.

The crux of this case is that the punishment is hugely disproportionate to the crime.

Re:Aliens!

[TractorBarry]

If you look into what actually occurred it would appear that Mr McKinnon simply took advantage of the fact that many of the computers on NASAs network were installed with default settings. Which at the time included having an admnistrative account created with a blank password (If I remember correctly this may have been a version of Windows NT ? Sorry I can't remember at present nor can I locate the article I read about it).

So his "hacking" consisted of running a script/scripts against known NASA IP blocks which simply looked for machines with blank passwords or open shares. And if you're running a machine with an open share on the internet then surely you're running a public share and are inviting public access ?

If that's hacking then inserting a CD you've been given in a CD Rom drive or plugging in a USB drive you've been given into a USB port and accessing their contents is hacking too.

It's a total disgrace that Britain would even consider an individual to be extradited with evidence as flimsy, and frankly pathetic, as this. The only possible reasons are that the NASA/The US Government are totally embarrassed at the ineptitude of their network security or he found (or potentially could have found) something *really* interesting.

On another note there's a very interesting account of him accessing images stored on one of the machines he found that were in a proprietary format and which he had to view by opening them with an application on the machine he was connected to by remote desktop.

This is a good little interview with Mr McKinnon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4PkNPCEnJM.

All in all it's a very interesting case.

Re:Aliens!

[h4rm0ny]

: everybody keeps harping on that particular strawman as if establishing that he committed a crime is the end of the story.

Ah, but you forget that a large percentage of Americans have a very absolutist point of view. Once they've established that a wrong has been done, they proceed immediately to the position that they should be hit with every punishment the human mind can devise. At that point discussion ceases and they simply sit there repeating "can't do the time, don't do the crime" in a permanent loop.

Re:Aliens!

[Jeng]

No, greys as in grey hair, he got the joke.

How did you get informative for that one?

Re:Aliens!

[shutdown -p now]

Yes, because posting content to the internet where other people can access it even though it may be illegal in their country is EXACTLY the same as delibberately gaining unauthorized access to a computer network you know full well to reside not just in another country, but within another country's government.

It's not the same, but you've got (I hope) head to make analogies.

Whether it's access to any computer network, or specifically government one, in another country, doesn't matter, so long as it's a crime in that country.

That it's unauthorized access to a computer network only matters insofar it's a crime in that country.

If you want a closer analogy, how about posting porn on a forum hosted (which you know about) in Iran and mainly visited by its citizens? You are knowingly and deliberately breaking the law of Iran. One which is not punished lightly there, I must add.

Re:Aliens!

[Krneki]

He didn't break into a random house, but in one that is supposed to be impenetrable with high security budget and while doing so he was just searching UFOs.

Considering he didn't do any harm and what he is searching does not exist, I don't see the point in putting him behind bars, especially if it was his first offense. I mean, is he really a problem so we need to waste time?

Re:Aliens!

[AltairDusk]

The crux of this case is that the punishment is hugely disproportionate to the crime.

But the punishment has not been determined, the case has not even gone to trial. People are assuming ridiculous sentences such as the "70 years of prison raping" mentioned by one commenter.

Right now, he has committed a crime and the US government wants him extradited so that he can be tried and a punishment determined (keep in mind he has to be convicted before that can even happen but given the facts in this case a guilty verdict can be safely assumed).

Re:Aliens!

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Right now, he has committed a crime and the US government wants him extradited so that he can be tried and a punishment determined

Right, then the US government will be happy to provide an assurance that

1. He will be provided with a lawyer of similar calibre to the prosecution at US public expense
2. Not recieve a sentence of greater than 1 year
3. Be allowed to serve his entire sentence in a British jail

Re:Aliens!

[dbIII]

With the information we have to date it appears he didn't have any skills. He merely used a remote desktop program and connected to a lot of addresses until he found some where idiots had not set a new password.

Re:Aliens!

[rtb61]

Sometimes the best propagandists can really shoot themselves in the foot and then shove that foot in their mouth. "Someone breaks into your house but doesn't take anything of value", so tell me what should be the appropriate punishment for that, a fine and a good behaviour bond, can you say "whoops".

So is it really appropriate for both governments to waste all this time and all that money on what realistically be punished as a misdemeanour, what the US could have "tried In absentia" applied a fine and demanded a good behaviour bond. Instead they had to wacko, go for ludicrous terrorism inspired charges, pretend the costs of establishing proper security where the hackers fault rather than something they were obligated to do anyhow.

A public spectacle of trying to create a public example, the ludicrous supposition that somehow it is much worse when the general public gets hold of secret information than when foreign intelligence agencies get hold of the same secrets. The blatant insecurity of those networks is pretty damning evidence that foreign intelligence agencies had a free for all on what supposedly were meant to be secure networks and computer systems.

Re:Aliens!

[Renegade Iconoclast]

You should keep that in mind next time you post any porn pics online, as you're likely commiting a crime "across national border" of Afghanistan or some other similarly advanced country.

Umm, I am guessing most /. readers are consumers of porn, not so much producers. Chatroulette does NOT count. It's only porn if somebody, somewhere in the world wants to see it.

Re:Aliens!

[AGMW]

If he was brave enough to even try to hack in to a Us government server,he should be brave enough to suffer to consequences too.

I kinda take your point, but I think that maybe where the (alleged?) Aspergers starts to become interesting and relevant.

As many of you /.ers out there can probably testify, having autism can make a person fixate on things, issues, subjects to the exclusion of everything else. If he really does have aspergers it could be the reason he fixated on UFOs, and the (conspiracy theory) idea that the US gov had been covering up the evidence, to make him step over the line (that he will simply not perceive at all!) and go hunting for evidence.

Now I'm not excusing his actions, and indeed he fully admits, in hindsight, that what he did was wrong, but if he has aspergers it would indeed have fuelled his search.

I would also like to point out that while "breaking and entering" is a crime, just "entering" is considerably less so! The fact that he was simply able to connect to unsecured hosts is quite simply laughable, and I suspect the root of the severity with which the US Gov have been chasing him - no one likes to be made a laughing stock and that is indeed what happened to the US Security Services in charge of ALL the hosts he managed to connect to.

I have some experience of secure systems and the first splash screen you should be presented with should tell you, in no uncertain terms, that proceeding further is verboten. If he just connected to some unsecured PCs I very much doubt he would have been presented with anything like that, further likening the experience to walking into a shop to have a look around.

He should be tried in the UK (although having admitted guilt I guess it's just the sentencing we're looking for) and banged up in the UK for as long as is deemed reasonable given the circumstances of his merry jaunt into the depths of the US's secured systems and whatever medical evidence can be provided to show his medical pre-disposition for such activities.

He is NOT a terrorist threat (indeed it could be argued that the US were lucky it was him and not someone else! - at the alleged $800000 it should be seen as a cheap lesson!) and the US's use of the bullying tactics against a UK subject should be slapped down by the UK Gov because it is simply not acceptable, however much we may have colluded in Gitmo, rendition, torture, etc in the past!

I would like to advise Gary not to be contemplating any holidays in the US though, or indeed any through flights that land there to refuel!

Re:Aliens!

[AGMW]

Like the US would have control over any aliens that stop by.

What's funny is that the US probably thinks it would - well how could they not with God on their side!

Re:Aliens!

[AGMW]

I agree with you 100%. It doesn't matter what medical conditions he has ...

Hmmm. Well, if the medical condition has some bearing on the criminal activity then, by definition, it does matter. Aspergers, assuming he has it, does pre-dispose those affected/afflicted with certain traits that would include a blinkered aproach to any problem to the exclusion of all else - ie he (allegedly) believes in UFOs and the advanced tech they have provided and which he believes the US are withholding (eg free energy) and thinks that wonder-tech should be in the public domain, so he goes looking for it!

That's not hard for me to believe. The fact that he was then able to basically walk into the US Secure Networks unhindered by any apparent security just fed his belief. Hell, if you had (free and unfettered) access to systems like that there were would be a very great desire to have a look around (and if you wouldn't want to sneak a peak then what're you doing on /.!).

If the US can show evidence of sufficient wrongdoings to warrant extradition then perhaps we'll look again, but there can be no extradition without evidence. Simples!

Re:Aliens!

[AGMW]

It doesn't matter whether he was guessing passwords or ran a brute force attack or what not.

If it doesn't matter then I'd say you need to get some better security staff!

Re:Aliens!

[sjames]

Depending on his level of autism, I might be tempted to cut him some slack if his 'breaking in' consisted of trying the door knob with the defective lock a couple of times and all he did was look around.

Re:Aliens!

[TheLink]

I wouldn't want anyone who breaks into my house, not take anything (or harass anybody) to get 50 years in jail for it. Even if they were bad people and not some relatively harmless Aspergers dude who thinks my house has UFO docs.

If he was mentally ill, I'd want him to get appropriate medical or psychiatric help for his condition so that he doesn't go around causing problems.

And if he still keeps doing it over and over again, despite the me, the Courts and etc telling him not to, then his freedoms will have to be limited so that I have a few years of not having my house broken into :).

Re:Aliens!

[rgviza]

Can you step outside for a moment? We'd like to have a word with you. We're in the black suburban out front.

Still suffering ???

[capnchicken]

Isn't that like saying still suffering from AIDS, Herpes, Diabetes, or Lou Gehrig's Disease?

Re:Still suffering ???

[capnchicken]

Yep, that is a much better list.

dude looks like

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude looks like an alien himself...

He wnats to know..

[MaerD]

He wnats the info because he's an alien trying to catch a ride home. I mean seriously, just look at the picture.. He's totally a grey in disguise!

More seriously, why not work out a deal where he won't be stuffed in supermax?

Re:He wnats to know..

[binary paladin]

Creepy. That appears to be the case!

Re:He wnats to know..

[Sulphur]

grey in disguise!

Earl Grey: Shaken not Stirred.

Re:He wnats to know..

[Bing Tsher E]

I was thinking more along the lines of a gray cap.

This is why he has to be tried over here

[Tekfactory]

He embarassed people, and made 'threats'

From TFA
McKinnon was surprised at how easy it was to enter the US networks. There were no firewalls and many government staff did not even have passwords. He left notes as he went, pointing out security deficiencies. One said: "US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days? It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand-down on September 11 last year . . . I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels."

Re:This is why he has to be tried over here

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like he did the deed, but doesn't want to pay the consequences to me.

Re:This is why he has to be tried over here

[Anonymous Coward]

This maybe true BUT the people who left these networks in such a terrible state should be tried for more serious crimes.

The US Govt should have given him a medal for exposing such terrible security on their systems. I'll bet they paid lots of taxpayer $$$ to $400 an hour so called Security consultants to setup systems like this?
These are the guys who should be in the dock.

In reality, I don't want him anywhere near a plane bound for the US UNTIL the US Govt ratified the extradition treaty with the UK. This would allow people to be extradited from the US to the UK on the same terms as he is being extradited the other way.
Oh silly me, it is probably unconstitutional. No evidence is needed to be presented to a Judge in the UK. The US Gov't just have tp promise that they have the evidence.
This clearly breaks 'dur process' laws in the US.
So until this mess is sorted out he should stay put!

Just my 2p worth on the matter.

Re:This is why he has to be tried over here

[soupd]

I have no love for people who force their way in to IT systems but the utter lack of security and safeguards in sensitive US systems in relation to what he did does tend to look as though the repercussions are more relative to embarrassment than actual harm.

Obviously this is based on what the, highly biassed, media report, but having worked in IT a while, it's really not THAT hard to take minimum precautions to minimally secure systems and it looks as though key US Government organisations did not do this.

It really does look as though its a nuke the intruder response to somebody who walked in, without forcing entry, into somewhere they should not have been.

Re:This is why he has to be tried over here

[ubernostrum]

It really does look as though its a nuke the intruder response to somebody who walked in, without forcing entry, into somewhere they should not have been.

IIRC he was originally offered a pretty sweet deal in return for information on how he did what he did and possibly some help securing things, and he basically responded by thumbing his nose at the US officials who made the offer. Which, predictably, resulted in them deciding to throw the book at him.

Re:This is why he has to be tried over here

[soupd]

I'm no expert, but really? Somebody with the mental condition Aspergers didn't not respond in a rationale way?

Re:This is why he has to be tried over here

[DrGamez]

At what point do we have to stop catering to someone who cannot grasp the levels of his actions? I can understand if he responded in a rational way but what would have been the best course of action here? He did something bad, the offended party offers some kind of leniency, and he denies. It's not like he's a crazy person - if you're smart enough to get into some government systems I assume you're smart enough to understand you "should not" do it; and there will be consequences for the actions.

Re:This is why he has to be tried over here

[Josh04]

Yes, 20 years per letter written.

Re:This is why he has to be tried over here

[ougouferay]

If the treaty was only became part of US law in 2006 and UK law in 2004 how can it be considered relevant in a case that started in 2001? When the first formal request for extradition was made late 2002 / early 2003 the law did not exist in either country and the case did not involve an extraditable offence anyway.

Re:This is why he has to be tried over here

[geekoid]

SOLO? Soviet Occupation Low Offense? he's clearing out whole cities as quickly as possible regardless of the 'mess'?

Re:This is why he has to be tried over here

[sponga]

They extradite people all the time to the UK.

They took our local bartender here in Southern California on some stuff that he was involved in an IRA bombing that killed a police officer, I didn't get to see the article around here for some weird reason.

"Asperger's syndrome, depression, anxiety, and panic attacks"
lol any other diseases you wanna throw in there to try to defend him, I remember it started out with Aspergers syndrome in the origianal article and there was a huge discussion about people lying about being diagnosed with Aspergers syndrome.

Got a funny itch? Aspergers syndrome
You get tired? Aspergers syndrome
Can't stand the outside world and make excuses for your incompetence? Aspergers syndrome

"This clearly breaks 'dur process' laws in the US"
Oh look some hard hitting facts...

Re:This is why he has to be tried over here

[L4t3r4lu5]

This extradition treaty was brought in two years after Gary accessed US government computers. They want it applied retroactively.

Stick that in your Constitutional pipe and smoke it.

Savage punishment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the new UK government keep its word and help him avoid a savage punishment?

But the UK government is punishing Savage by banning him from entering the country.

Re:Savage punishment?

[xous]

I believe the extradition is what his lawyers are trying to say would cause him 'problems'.

Re:Savage punishment?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Or is the allegation that US prisons are, in and of themselves, cruel and unusual punishment?

Well, the standard that signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights are bound to is "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
I wouldn't be surprised if, (things continuing to go the way that they are now in Europe, and things staying more-or-less as they are in the US,) the risk of people being imprisoned in a US prison will fall into that category and prevent an extradition sometime within the next 10 years or so. Governments already have to get agreement (from the US) that a person extradited will not face the death penalty in order to fulfill their convention obligations - I would not be at all surprised if 'life-without-parol-in-a-supermax' is next, and not within a great length of time.

Re:Savage punishment?

[eddy the lip]

You may underestimate the lack of confidence the rest of the world has in the American justice system, especially when it comes to dealing with non-US citizens.

I'm a Canadian. I've visited the US. Many Americans are quite nice. I have no criminal record. I won't cross the border.

It's like not wanting to visit your brother because you're not sure if he's going to be an insane drunkard that night.

Re:Savage punishment?

[tehcyder]

Or is the allegation that US prisons are, in and of themselves, cruel and unusual punishment?

Well, yes, that plus the absurdly long potential sentence that prosecutors have talked about.

NASA and the Pentagon?!?

[wbav]

Everyone knows it is the NSA that keeps that data. Just ask your friendly local NSA operative, is there alien life. I always get, "We decline to comment on that subject at this time. All hail Kang."

Re:NASA and the Pentagon?!?

[Brett Buck]

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

Re:NASA and the Pentagon?!?

[wbav]

Gotta love /. When my coworkers won't get a Simpsons reference, someone will always get it here.

That always makes me suspicious

[Gramie2]

He suffers from anxiety, depression and panic attacks? Exactly what people claim when they are suing for ridiculous amounts of money. Utterly impossible to prove or disprove, and plenty of doctors will probably accept a nice fee to testify either way.

I'm not saying that he doesn't suffer from these, but hearing it makes me roll my eyes and wonder if it's not just a sympathy act.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[Jeng]

I guess its just not PC to state that he is a complete raving lunatic who believes in aliens.

Not that you need to be a complete raving lunatic to believe in aliens mind you, but that is basically his defense.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[wondafucka]

He suffers from anxiety, depression and panic attacks? Exactly what people claim when they are suing for ridiculous amounts of money. Utterly impossible to prove or disprove, and plenty of doctors will probably accept a nice fee to testify either way.

I'm not saying that he doesn't suffer from these, but hearing it makes me roll my eyes and wonder if it's not just a sympathy act.

As someone who suffers from anxiety, depression, and panic attacks, I am glad you have educated me that there are people who are predisposed to believe that we are making it all up. Although I am well aware that people have problems accepting situations that have not happened to them personally, I will add this one to the list.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[ShadowRangerRIT]

And "suffering" from Asperger's syndrome is really odd wording. I've got Asperger's syndrome myself, and while it makes my experience of the world somewhat different, it's no more a cause of suffering than most personality traits. The other problems he has could legitimately be described as a form of suffering; the experience of the world would be qualitatively worse than if you did not have them, but the same does not apply to Asperger's.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Anxiety has reasonably well studied chemical markers. We don't typically bother to test them; because people running to their shrink to lie about being anxious just isn't a huge problem(and, to the degree that it does happen, a lot of first line anxiolytics(lorazipam, diazapam, clonazapam, beer, etc. are cheap and not wildly harmful. Who cares if some people who want them get their hands on them?)

Panic attacks might be fakeable by a good actor(I don't know if manipulating your pulse and andrenaline levels is something they teach you in acting school; but I won't dismiss the notion out of hand); but, unless he is actually a master manipulator who has been fooling everybody for years, this guy is not a good actor.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[elrous0]

Calm down, buddy. He's not saying *YOU* are making it up, only that this guy *might* be (a reasonable suspicion, considering he has a very strong personal interest in making himself sound as mentally ill as possible, to avoid extradition).

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[mrmtampa]

But have you committed felonies as a result of your afflictions? And if you have, don't you think it would be in your own and the world's best interests to deal with that reality?

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[hannson]

Isn't Asperger's syndrome somewhat like ADHD in that it can be seen in mild to extreme cases?

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Autism is a spectrum from mild to severe. "Severe" Asperger's seems to be a less stigmatizing way of describing moderate autistic symptoms. The dividing line isn't clear between the various categories (that's why it's a spectrum), so I suppose the classification will differ somewhat depending on the doctor. The DSM-IV isn't a perfect resource.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Not that it matters, but I was diagnosed by a psychiatrist back in the 80s. The diagnosis was interesting, but not particularly relevant to the reasons I visited in the first place. And given that it's hardly disabling and largely untreatable with drugs even if I wanted to (which I don't), your suspicions of the psychiatric profession seem rather off-target.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[vlm]

As someone who suffers from anxiety, depression, and panic attacks

Yes, his post might have pissed you off. Pisses me off a bit too. But, look on the bright side, you get the last laugh on him, because if that legal defense plan works, at least you'll always have a side job available as an independent computer based UFO researcher. Even in a flamewar, every mushroom cloud has a silver lining, I suppose.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Please, please don't talk about Asperger's as if it is some sort of code word for "smart." Or talk about it like we're persecuted when we're treated no differently than any other somewhat socially inept individual. It doesn't make anything better, and it makes people view everyone with Asperger's as narcissistic and/or whiny. When your view of the world differs from 90+% of humanity, and it's noticeable in day-to-day conversation, you're going to be viewed as different. Be thankful it's being referred to as a syndrome now, not a disorder. Everything is a syndrome nowadays, and as long as they don't insist on "curing" me, they can call it whatever they like.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[ShadowRangerRIT]

To-may-to, to-mah-to. I'm perfectly happy calling it Tuesday if you like. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet and all that.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[malkavian]

Well, as someone who gets hit with depression now and then, I get what's going through his head. Yes, this will be exacerbated by a court case hanging over his head (which will be true if he's extradited or not; he'll be charged in the UK under the Misuse of Computers act, which carries a fairly stiff sentence of its own, and I don't think anybody, or at least any sane person, believes that he should get off without charge).
The part that's really got people up in arms is that he's being extradited for something fairly minor (cracking is not a huge deal, especially when it's into a network that hasn't even been secured. A criminal offence for sure, but something to extradite over? That's usually reserved for murder, rape, terrorist offences and the like).
Now, if he's extradited, this effectively removes his ability to have visitations from his friends, family and support network; he's in a far more vulnerable position psychologically than your average person that suffers the same things and doesn't get extradited. Removal of this support could very easily turn a middling depression into something deeper and far nastier.
Part of justice is to see that any punishment fits the crime. Slamming him in jail for a while seems to be fitting. Carting him halfway across the world, to a country where he doesn't even have the rights of a citizen, and is effectively denied access to his friends and family (apart from those that choose, and can afford in the middle of a financial downturn, to spend a grand or so per trip to go and get some face time in as a visitation to the jail) doesn't really seem to fit the bill to me.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[malkavian]

No, his defence against extradition is that it's removing him from his psychological support network (for financial reasons; his family and friends can't afford to pay him the occasional visit, as they would be able to in a local jail where he'd otherwise be sent to in the UK after being found guilty under the Misuse of Computers Act).
Adding that degree of seperation is a huge thing, and all for an offence which is relatively minor (extradition for 'cracking' a network that doesn't even have basic security implemented? Wow. That's.. Truly draconian).

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[RocketRabbit]

Of course it is a sympathy act.

Besides, if you had the entire US Federal Government out for your blood and hide, you'd probably suffer from anxiety, depression, and panic attacks too! I know I would!

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[RocketRabbit]

Relax, cheer up, and blow into this bag for a minute.

People do make stuff like this up all the time. Heck, I know people with other, unrelated mental problems who feign anxiety attacks because it gets them the attention they crave. Babies and little kids do this shit, and I think a lot of people who "suffer" from such ailments never just grew the fuck out of it usually due to a lack of actual parenting effort by the people who biologically formed them, combined with a total lack of understanding of the concept of personal responsibility.

The point of the matter is that, he had cognition when he broke into those computers, knew what he did, and got busted for it. Then he did the worst thing ever, admitting to it! If I was that dumb and knew it was almost impossible to run or hide I would be suffering from anxiety, depression, and panic attacks too. But just because I am nervous because I was dumb should not be an excuse to evade personal responsibility. This is what Gary is possibly doing and it fucking reeks.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[Rakishi]

The people who love to memorize train and bus schedules are probably the descendants of the people that first figured out things like how to predict eclipses.

No, those people would have starved to death or been eaten by wolves. On the other hand the socially able and cunning ancient jock survived by organizing his village into an efficient force for fighting against natural and human enemies.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[gmhowell]

You should get your money back from your "psychiatrist". And I put that in quotes because psychiatrists are pretty much drug dealing mental hacks that have about as much business being called a doctor as a naturopath does.

Back in the closet with you Tom Cruise!

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[Trogre]

I sympathize with your condition(s), but think you're missing the point. Which is that, irrespective of health, folks must still be responsible for their own actions.

At the risk of invoking the Godwin brigade, consider if Adolf Hitler was found to have aspergers, anxiety, depression and panic attacks (not an altogether unreasonable consideration). Would he have been pardoned because of his health?

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[Trogre]

I suspect a fair portion folks here just talk about Asperger's as a code word for "like Sheldon Cooper".

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[pseudofrog]

If I was facing the prospect of dying in a foreign prison for an act in which nobody was hurt, I would do everything I could to stay out. If you wouldn't do the same, you're a idiot. You'd be concerned about honesty when your dealing with an entity that wants to take your life away?

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[rainmouse]

A Psychiatrist once told me that multiple personality syndrome is diagnosed in only one very specific demographic on the whole planet and that is within the American legal system.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[merockstar]

Aspergers, however, is slightly more definable.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[Xest]

It's not a reasonable suspicion because it's utterly stupid in the context.

We're talking about a guy who has been fighting against the combined might of the British and US government to avoid extradition. If he thinks McKinnon paid off a doctor for the diagnosis he got does he really believe someone in the British or US government involved in checking whether he's fit to prosecute might have, you know, checked his mental health out themselves? They might have checked the validity of the doctor's statement?

We're not talking about someone pulling a sicky to get a day off work here, faking illness in the face of extradition is quite different.

Don't you think rather than suffer countless embarassments over their persistence to continue with this the British government might have you know, come out and simply said either "He refused our diagnosis so we can't confirm he really has this problem", or "Our doctor found nothing wrong with him"? Contrary to the GGP's assertion, these things aren't impossible to prove or disprove at all.

The only thing the GPP demonstrated is that he's ignorant but despite his ignorance feels he's qualified to state something as fact regardless of how little he clearly knows about the subject.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[imakemusic]

He (GP) didn't accuse him (GGP) of saying that he was making it up, he was commenting on the fact that people often doubt the truth these conditions:

"hearing it makes me roll my eyes and wonder if it's not just a sympathy act"

i.e. his first reaction on hearing the story was to wonder if the guy is making it up.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[RocketRabbit]

I think you proved my point for me. Who wouldn't come up with any excuse they could muster to evade the legal system? Damn near everything has been tried, and depression and anxiety do not fare well as excuses go. I believe less than a tenth of a percent of insanity pleas result in clemency or acquittal.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[Gramie2]

I'm not sure if you are referring to me as GPP, but if so you are somehow understanding

"I'm not saying that he doesn't suffer from these, but hearing it makes me roll my eyes and wonder if it's not just a sympathy act."

as me stating a fact. (Well, the me rolling my eyes and wondering is a fact, but I don't think that's what you meant.)

And are you saying that claims of anxiety and panic attacks can be conclusively proven or disproven? I'm pretty sure that, given enough incentive, you or I could display the appropriate symptoms, at least enough to fool some doctors.

It's like back pain. We KNOW that some people fake it to go on disability, because occasionally they will get caught running marathons, etc. Not that all do.

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[Gramie2]

And what is wrong with expressing my doubts? Because this guy is going up against two large, aggressive, and dangerous organizations, does that mean that everything he says is the truth and must be accepted as such?

If a cyclist (take, oh, Floyd Landis as an example) strenuously denies using performance-enhancing drugs, is it unfair of me to think that maybe he is?

Re:That always makes me suspicious

[Xest]

"And are you saying that claims of anxiety and panic attacks can be conclusively proven or disproven? I'm pretty sure that, given enough incentive, you or I could display the appropriate symptoms, at least enough to fool some doctors."

Again, I think the issue is you're confusing the situation- people can fake these symptons well enough to get past their local doctor if all they want is a sick note for a few weeks off work because their local doctor is going to be quite apathetic in this situation, there's no downside to the doctor to just accepting what they say.

In contrast, for a full blown extradition battle against two large governments the doctors are going to have to look a hell of a lot harder and that's the point at which faking it is no longer going to cut it. We're simply not talking about an apathetic doctor here, but someone whose examinations are going to face the scrutiny of other experts in the courts, any professional doctor who specialises in this sort of thing is going to see right through someone faking it, and any doctor signing someone off with this in the face of such an event is going to be pretty careful about what they diagnose. Again, the fact that the government hasn't even bothered to try and dispute his mental health and is instead focussing on other points is pretty telling.

"UFO Hacker"

[uofitorn]

Didn't Roland Emmerich already demonstrate in the 1996 US documentary Independence Day that UFO's can successfully be hacked by introducing a computer virus into the mothership?

Re:"UFO Hacker"

[DriedClexler]

No, he proved that Apple products are so freakishly different that if an advanced alien computer tried to interface with one, it will blow up in frustration.

Re:"UFO Hacker"

[confused one]

Only if you use a Mac. Because Apple hardware speaks alien computer --- it just works.

Re:"UFO Hacker"

[geekoid]

Assuming you've studied it for 50 years,and used the technology you discovered as the foundation to modern computers.

Why do people forget that part?

Re:"UFO Hacker"

[Nazlfrag]

Yeah, that's what they want you to think.

Little sympathy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid that I have little sympathy for this guy. I do not think that breaking into computer systems is harmless play. If he'd actually gone to trial back when he was indicted, instead of fighting it for all these years, he's have gotten a minor sentence, very likely no prison time at all, and almost certainly would be out now.
I have no reason to believe these flamboyant claims that he's likely to be put away for a prison term of "seventy years;" this is bizarre hyperbole that has nothing to do with the way sentencing is actually done in the US.

Re:Little sympathy

[selven]

If he'd actually gone to trial back when he was indicted, instead of fighting it for all these years, he's have gotten a minor sentence, very likely no prison time at all, and almost certainly would be out now.

Well of course, the authorities don't like people fighting back against them and tend to kick them down extra hard if they manage to get them, to encourage others to take it lying down. Standing up to this standard bullying tactic is brave, and should be lauded regardless of whether you happen to agree with the crime in question.

Re:Little sympathy

[malkavian]

You entirely miss the point.
He's not saying he should get off without charge; he's saying he should be tried in the UK for a criminal offense committed in the UK, and go to a UK jail as a UK citizen. What the US is trying to do is extradite him (supposedly something done for very serious crimes), and try him for possible terror charges.
This is not what the extradition agreements were meant to be for, and the UK populace is pretty up in arms about it as the last (Labour government) rolled over and drooled at the chance to sign an extradition treaty without the US signing up to its side (it still hasn't, sensibly enough). So, we currently have a treaty whereby a relatively minor crime can have the US extraditing UK citizens, with nothing reciprocal (if a US citizen ran riot through the UK defence computers in this fashion, the UK could NOT extradite them).

In theory, he could be charged with terror offences, and banged up for an awful long time. He probably wouldn't be, but hey.. What he's really fighting for is to be tried in his home country, and the country where the offence was committed (he was misusing a computer while based in the UK, which carries quite a penalty; easily sufficient to cover the term you think is sensible for him to be banged up for).

Re:Little sympathy

[jmorris42]

> this is bizarre hyperbole that has nothing to do with the way sentencing is actually done in the US.

Exactly. Even the article was the sort of gross bias one only finds from kdawson or on sites like Daily Kos. The guy doesn't really dispute that he committed the crimes and it is long standing tradition that one faces judgement in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred, not where one happens to live or where one gets arrested. Having trouble seeing where the can be a controversy to argue about really.

And just to try creating a little discussion.... insanity should be no defense anyway. A succesful insanity plea should result in a Guilty verdict followed by another one judging the person Insane. So they go to a secure mental ward instead of the general prison population. If they can be treated, drugs or whatever, they can file a plea to have the Insane verdict removed and if judged no longer a menace to society they could be released under strict parole rules requiring them to stay on their meds or continue any other treatment. A verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity makes enforcing post release rules a lot harder.

Re:Little sympathy

[hedwards]

Yes, but that's bullies. Standing up to a police officer that's arresting you for something that he saw you do is hardly going to result in leniency. Same way here, I haven't heard any credible claims that he didn't do it, but rather than just plead guilty and accept what could very well be just a slap on the wrist, he's fighting tooth and nail and probably going to get the book thrown at him as a result.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily going to be a proportional sentence, but he did break the law and he does have to answer to at least some form of punishment.

Re:Little sympathy

[hedwards]

You can be extradited for just about any crime. It's just that it's unusual to say the least to be extradited for a misdemeanor. But that's mostly a matter of value of resources.

Re:Little sympathy

[malkavian]

Constitutional protection only applies to US citizens.
The issues is that he's removed from his support network of friends and family who are effectively denied (for financial and logistical reasons) visitation, where this wouldn't be the case if he were tried and found guilty in the UK.
This effective removal of visitation and support is the crux of the matter. This isn't actually like shooting someone across a border, as that would be a far higher level of crime, and actually fit in what extradition was intended for.
It's more like reaching a hand across the border and taking someone's $100 bill from a table where it was left with nobody nearby, then being extradited for theft into a country 5000+ miles away from where you live.

Re:Little sympathy

[shutdown -p now]

The offense wasn't really committed in the UK; it's like shooting someone over a border, the crime happens where the bullet hits.

I already gave one example of why this approach is problematic on Slashdot which is in the best tradition of Bad Analogy Guy; let me repeat that:

A 20 year old guy who is a Canadian citizen is standing in Alberta near the Canada-US border. A 16 year old girl who is an American citizen is watching him from Montana side of the border. The guy pulls his pants down and flashes his dick at her. A question now is, which crime was committed - just indecent exposure, or also sexual assault on a minor - and in which country?

Re:Little sympathy

[shutdown -p now]

it is long standing tradition that one faces judgement in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred

There is no such long-standing tradition. Indeed, historically, this was not the case, until formal extradition treaties started to appear - which is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Furthermore, even with such treaties, the "long-standing" tradition is that extradition only applies where both parties to the agreement consider the action a crime, and also when prescribed punishment for that crime is reasonably similar. I.e. a country which punishes pot smoking by a small fine wouldn't extradite a person charged with such to another country where he'd get 5 years behind bars. Some countries downright refuse to extradite anyone if there is a possibility of his verdict being death penalty. And so on.

Now, this is directly applicable to this case, because US is bringing charges on a much higher level here than what the guy would get in UK for doing the very same thing, and, consequently, the punishment is likely do be much more severe as well. Which is why the UK would be within "tradition" to tell US to GTFO, and I sincerely hope that their new government does just that.

Of course, they would still have to hold a proper court for this guy, and punish him according to the law of their land. But this is none of US concern.

Re:Little sympathy

[westlake]

He's not saying he should get off without charge; he's saying he should be tried in the UK for a criminal offense committed in the UK

I don't believe it is responsible to argue that a suspect should escape extradition for crimes committed by remote control across a state or international border.

The precedent it sets is simply too dangerous.

McKinnon was in the UK.

But the computers he broke into were in the US.

They could only be accessed except through commands that were executed in the US.

Re:Little sympathy

[couchslug]

He acted UPON hardware located in the US. He was reaching FROM the UK to have physical effect on objects in the US.

Nice try though!

Re:Little sympathy

[martin-boundary]

Nonsense! What you think is a dangerous precedent is exactly a right that the US claims for US citizens. The US doesn't recognize the authority of the International Court of Justice, and refuses to extradite US citizens to the Hague to stand trial. If this argument is good enough for US citizens, then why shouldn't it be also good enough for UK citizens? Double standards!

Re:Little sympathy

[sl3xd]

Constitutional protection only applies to US citizens.

Um, no. All trials and criminal investigations done on US soil provide the same protections whether they are a citizen or not. Part of the reasoning behind using Guantanamo as a prison is that it's in Cuba.

The shooting across the border argument is still valid - you don't have to injure or kill a person for a crime to be committed; there's still property damage, which is part of the case against Gary.

The $100 theft argument isn't particularly honest. The problem comes down to one's ability to 'reach' into a foreign country and commit a crime. One's reach is long indeed on the internet.

One additional issue is that many Americans are insulted at the minuscule amount of respect being given to their court system. The US courts are not show trials; being extradited does not mean he is even likely to get a guilty verdict. A core principle of the court system in the US is "Better a murderer go free than an innocent man be imprisoned. Most of the 'terrorists' tried at the military tribunals in Guantanamo have been acquitted and sent home. The lack of physical harm and Gary's mental condition and state will be heard and taken into account. In all honesty, while the potential sentence is rather harsh, the actual sentence will likely be little more than a slap on the wrist.

Re:Little sympathy

[serviscope_minor]

If he was so worried about it, maybe he shouldn't have committed the crime.

Have you ever heard of the concept of "let the punishment fit the crime"? It used to be illegal under pain of execution to urinate on Westminster bridge. Do you think that is reasonable (just don't pee on the bridge then) or completely moonbat insane?

Re:Little sympathy

[tehcyder]

In all honesty, while the potential sentence is rather harsh, the actual sentence will likely be little more than a slap on the wrist.

Yes, because in a reasonable legal system, when you have a sliding scale of punishment from "seventy years in prison" down to "slight verbal admonishment", then obviously a government which has spent a lot of time and money trying to get someone extradited is going to press for the latter.

Re:Little sympathy

[Stradivarius]

Have you ever heard of the concept of "let the punishment fit the crime"? It used to be illegal under pain of execution to urinate on Westminster bridge. Do you think that is reasonable (just don't pee on the bridge then) or completely moonbat insane?

Execution for public urination would be insane, I agree. Execution should be reserved for crimes that killed other people.

Though if it was me, and I knew pissing on the bridge would result in execution, I'd have only myself to blame if I went and pissed on the bridge 97 times until I got caught.

I think it's ridiculous how some folks on Slashdot have been making this guy out to be some sort of innocent victim. He broke into 97 different computer systems, and caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in investigatory and cleanup costs to his victims.

These are not accidents. They're not just a case of making one dumb mistake. They're a pattern of criminal activity over a long period of time.

He knew that what he was doing was illegal. He knew it was wrong. He knew it would cost the victims a lot, and the legal consequences he could face if caught. And he did it anyway, over and over again. I just don't see why we should have sympathy for a guy like that.

Most hilarious summary ever

[PCM2]

Gary McKinnon's treatment at the hands of the bloodthirsty, subhuman U.S. government officials will be savage, just SAVAGE. Who will save this kind, generous, upstanding man of peace from the vicious fate he faces if this extradition is allowed to go through? See him quiver and tremble as he suffers the throes of Aspergers Syndrome! Can you not see how depressed and anxious the threat of prosecution is making him? What kind of monster would will such evil upon this defenseless man, who surly is guilty of nothing but a deep and heartfelt thirst for knowledge about our Grey brothers from the beyond?

Give me a break.

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[Kaemaril]

> What kind of monster would will such evil upon this defenseless man I'm not convinced he's the emotionally and mentally crippled guy the article is painting him to be, but the answer to the question "What kind of monster" is an easy one ... the American Justice System. It's been pretty monstrous for years.

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[elrous0]

Even by Western developed world standards the U.S. justice system is hardly "monstrous." It may be one of the last Western countries to still have the death penalty and no one is defending the egregious misdeeds of the previous administration and their waterboarding of suspected terrorists. But to call is "monstrous" is ludicrous. At the most, this guy will face some time in a federal minimum security prison. It's not like anyone is breaking out rope to hang him.

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[Purity Of Essence]

I agree. Having the highest incarceration rate in the world is an example that all free nations should aspire to. USA #1!

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[elrous0]

If you prefer, we could adopt China's policy of just executing everyone in sight, quickly and with no appeal. That would cut down on our incarceration rates.

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[confused one]

You didn't read the article. He faces time in a maximum security prison, because he's a foreigner and a flight risk. Or so they claim.

I think the saying goes, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[malkavian]

Funny, but you miss the point that it's all about being extradited for a minor offence. He faces a court case in the UK if he doesn't get yanked half way round the world to face a hostile country, and a jail full of patriotic nut cases who'd love nothing more than to get one over on the Brit for playing with their country.
No visitations from friends or family, who'd have to stump up the price of a plane fare to get to see him.
That's the cruel part; not being able to see friends, family and the support network.

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[mowall]

OK, time for a karma beating...

If the USA wants to extradite him, it should be part of a mutual agreement. Currently the extradition agreement is biased towards the USA. Of course our last government did make that agreement but that's down to the fact that Tony Blair was Bush's bitch and we're still paying for the wars that the Bush persuaded Blair to drag us into.

Essentially the reasons most of us in the UK disagree with this extradition are (in no particular order):

1) The mutual extradition agreement is unbalanced in cases of this type.
2) The guy has Asperger's.
3) Your agencies essentially left the door wide open and he just strolled in. It wasn't persistent hardcore hacking (which your enemies are more likely to do)
4) He wasn't likely to cause any real damage - aside from potentially leaking information, which is quite serious of course but we've caught him, we can deal with him.
5) WE ARE YOUR ALLY! It obviously wasn't a UK conspiracy against the USA. You have plenty of enemies. Concentrate on them!

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[sconeu]

WE ARE YOUR ALLY! It obviously wasn't a UK conspiracy against the USA. You have plenty of enemies. Concentrate on them!

What does being an ally have to do with it? Jonathan Pollard says hello.

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[shutdown -p now]

At the most, this guy will face some time in a federal minimum security prison.

Is that the one, every mention of which results in Americans cracking jokes about some guy named Bubba, and that incomprehensible acronym - what was it - PMITA?

Yeah, very civilized, I'm sure.

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[droopus]

How about the largest population of incarcerated individuals on the planet? True.

So, what is it...are we, as Americans just naturally felonious, or...maybe, the justice system, um, sucks?

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[Wyatt Earp]

No, the PMITA prisons from Officespace are State prisons. Federal prisons are supposed to be safe.

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[ultranova]

So, what is it...are we, as Americans just naturally felonious, or...maybe, the justice system, um, sucks?

You Americans have a fetish for punishing people. Basically, you're the mob at Circus Maximus shouting for blood; your leaders are all too happy to find more people to feed to the lions to distract you from your crumbling empire.

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[LanMan04]

[Citation Needed]

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[elrous0]

Too lazy to use Google? Okay, here you go.

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[LanMan04]

Per that article: The vast majority of death penalty cases in China are due convictions of aggravated murder or large scale drug trafficking.

The vast majority of people in American prisons are NOT in prison for aggravated murder or large scale drug trafficking, so your solution to adopt the Chinese model of capital punishment would not put a significant dent in American prison populations.

Re:Most hilarious summary ever

[Purity Of Essence]

I said I agreed with him. Can't you fucking read?

Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[georgewilliamherbert]

If he's convicted he gets to go to minimum security federal jail for probably 2-4 years. How is that savage punishment?

Aspergers is neither a cause of computer hacking nor an excuse for it. "Oh, a trial or jail will traumatize him" isn't a valid reason to not put someone on trial either in the US or in England.

This guy was misguided rather than intentionally malicious, but he misguided himself into a bunch of federal felonies. Aspergers doesn't change your ability to understand legal vs illegal acts.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Vahokif]

Mod parent up. The only problem is that the US is trying to get him to pay a fortune for damages, as if he created the vulnerability as opposed to exposing it.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[spribyl]

> Aspergers doesn't change your ability to understand legal vs illegal acts.

This is not entirely true. Aspergers/Autistic spectrum disorder can affect the way you perceive and react to the world. On of Aspergers hallmarks is poor understanding and perception of what is right and wrong both socially and as a sub set the law(as a social contract). I don't now the particulars of this persons diagnosis but it is certainly within the realm of possibilities.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[elrous0]

I just hope his defense has a better argument than "We found a psychologist who says he has Aspergers." The "I'm a social retard, so please excuse my hacking" defense hasn't worked very well in the past.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Local ID10T]

If he's convicted he gets to go to minimum security federal jail for probably 2-4 years. How is that savage punishment?

Aspergers is neither a cause of computer hacking nor an excuse for it. "Oh, a trial or jail will traumatize him" isn't a valid reason to not put someone on trial either in the US or in England.

This guy was misguided rather than intentionally malicious, but he misguided himself into a bunch of federal felonies. Aspergers doesn't change your ability to understand legal vs illegal acts.

So try him in England, where he lives, and where he was when he allegedly committed the crimes... The US Government can afford to send an attorney (or state department representative) to speak on their behalf. He can be tried and convicted and punished in the UK. There is no reason to send him to the USA.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[PCM2]

The only problem is that the US is trying to get him to pay a fortune for damages, as if he created the vulnerability as opposed to exposing it.

If you walk into a china shop and kick over all the shelves, smashing all the china, then turn around and tell the shop owner, "These shelves should have been secured better," I'm willing to bet a jury would find you liable for damages.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, 2 to 4 years of prison rape. Doesn't sound so bad. The guy should have some kind of punishment coming, but Americans will never convince me that being sent to prison rape criminal school is in any some kind of justice.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[GooberToo]

The only problem is that the US is trying to get him to pay a fortune for damages, as if he created the vulnerability as opposed to exposing it.

Any time a system is penetrated it is considered completely compromised. Addressed compromised systems demands significant damages because damage has been suffered. The simple act of gaining illegal access requires untold hours of logging, following endless procedures, rebuilding the system (usually at a temporary loss of services), ensuring compliance with current standards (which are far from brief), so on and so on. For every system he violated, shit loads of both dollars and man hours must be spent cleaning up afterwards. And this all ignores the general assessment which must follow to determine if additional, unknown systems might have been accessed and/or compromised. Basically, this is a really big fucking deal.

In short, this guy is not only a complete idiot, but he deserves serious jail time and a life time of fines. He did, after all, work hard to earn it. Since he definitely did earn it, I don't have a problem with the government handing it to him. Its what he wanted after all.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Renraku]

I'm a healthy adult and a trial and/or jail would traumatize me too, especially since I would know that it's going to be a show trial. Even if I were found not guilty of 90% of the counts, they'd still throw me in jail for ten years for 'failure to appear' or something because they got their asses handed to them in the security department.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[LWATCDR]

"This guy was misguided rather than intentionally malicious"
Really? I wounder how many other people fit that category. Honestly he broke into government computers knowingly. It is a crime.
Truth is that he will probably get time served or less and be sent back home. He is in all reality a harmless nut case.
The issue is can the US and UK work out a way to deal with his punishment. You know if you do it again you will be put under the prison and some kind of probation?
That is the problem since he commuted a crime in the US while in the UK just how do you deal with it without him having to sit in the US?
I just don't see a US judge wanting to put this guy into a supermax for 70 years. It would cause issues with our relations with the UK and wouldn't really benefit anybody.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Vahokif]

Except the china was already broken. They fixed the vulnerability that was there before he found it, and now they're trying to get him to pay for it.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Vahokif]

That doesn't change the fact that the system was vulnerable in the first place. Punish him for entering illegally but don't make him pay for repairs that should've been made anyway.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[jjohnson]

Well said.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[GooberToo]

affect the way you perceive and react to the world.

That's true of social interaction. Legal comprehension in general is not affected. While he may not realize endlessly staring at a hot chick's tits is bad, especially when close enough to physically touch them. He understands breaking into computer systems absolutely is illegal. To boot, its extremely likely he has heard, been told, and read such actions are illegal.

Aspergers almost exclusively affects social cues and associated interactions. It does not affect comprehension or higher learning in general. If it did, its not likely he'd been able to master the skills he used to penetrate the networks. Bluntly, its all but impossible his disease is a significant factor here; aside from believing it was a good idea or that he wouldn't be caught.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Anonymous Coward]

And apparently you missed the part of the article that states that it would *not* be "minimal security"

If McKinnon is extradited, he could be given a 70-year sentence in a high-security prison (he would, as an overseas national, be considered a "flight risk", hence imprisonment with violent criminals rather than in an open prison).

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[agrif]

The only problem is that the US is trying to get him to pay a fortune for damages, as if he created the vulnerability as opposed to exposing it.

If you walk into a china shop and kick over all the shelves, smashing all the china, then turn around and tell the shop owner, "These shelves should have been secured better," I'm willing to bet a jury would find you liable for damages.

I'm going to shoehorn my correction into the china shop metaphor, because it's more fun that way.

It'd be like if the china shop owner was actually an FBI agent, and after he locked up he opened his laptop and started looking at all his super-secret FBI stuff. Then, some guy behind him says "ooh that's some neat secret info," and it turns out there's a second door with no lock that this guy just had to open. Then the FBI charges him with stealing information and for money to install a new lock.

The point is, there are damages to charge for in this case, like how this guy stole information. However, asking for money to secure a system that they didn't know was insecure before the break-in is dumb.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[elrous0]

Another characteristic of Aspergers is that there is no objective medical test to say whether you have it or not. It all comes down to getting a psychologist to SAY you have it. Not saying this guy is faking, but if I were in his shoes, I certainly would be (and claiming ADHD, bipolar disorder, and everything else I could get a friendly shrink to believe).

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[georgewilliamherbert]

There's no reason for him to go into a high security prison. It costs more for the feds to hold high security prisoners, he's never been accused of violence, he seems to be a low risk to guards or other prisoners. Him being a foreign national doesn't really play into it.

His supporters in England are using the "He could theoretically be sentenced to high-security!" as a scare tactic, along with a number of others. Sure, he could be - they could send him to SuperMax in Colorado. But they won't, because it's expensive and there's nothing he's done that justifies anything more than minimum security.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[malkavian]

He's not disputing the offense. He's complaining that it's not an extraditable offense, and he should be tried in the UK (where he's a citizen, and where he committed the offence) under UK law (which has stiff penalties for the activity) and placed in a UK jail.
Dragging him halfway across the world for something that's relatively minor really just seems like crass stupidity when he will most likely get the same sentence in his home country.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[malkavian]

Right, so you walk into a china shop, and kick over the shelves.
Next thing you're told is that those items are still the property of the company, which happens to be based in some country which had recently declared it an offence which could be tried as a terrorist offence to kick over shelves in china shops, and which your home country had signed up to an extradition treaty which the other country decided not to bother to do.
Now this other country turns round and says to your country that it wants to extradite you for breaking the china in the shop, despite the fact you could be fairly tried in your own country.

Does this clear things up a bit as to why he's fighting the extradition attempt? I'm just absolutely stunned that most people on here don't actually seem to understand it's all about the extradition, not an attempt to dodge a court case (which he'd have to face in the UK).

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[DaveGod]

Part of this is due to the public perception of McKinnon being that he's a "bumbling nerd", the asperger's thing merely being seen as medical confirmation.

But there's other things going on here. It's not at all about him facing some appropriate punishment, all his supporters simply want that to be decided and carried out in the UK.

His claims that he practically wandered in, left a few embarrassing messages and that's about it is widely believed. The accusations of damages are thought to be more the cost of the US putting in place security which needed to have been there anyway. The US justice system does not seem to be very highly regarded by Americans, and even allowing for the normal distrust of any foreign justice system, internationally the opinion is even lower. (Even if it is just due to the anomalies that get reported - UK papers tend to print articles about ridiculously lenient UK sentences, American media tends to report the ridiculously harsh ones, whatever, this is an observation of perception, I'm not claiming that is or isn't a fair assessment of reality).

This is amply reinforced by the US's mishandling of the situation. It seems attorneys do not do diplomacy, you say 2-4 years, but US authorities said life and that some want to see him "fry" for "the biggest computer hack of all time". Charging him as a cyber-terrorist very likely didn't help, internationally (and certainly here on /.) there's not a lot of trust for the US when the T-word comes up. The perception is that the US are all fired up up to beat up on him as hard as they possibly can because they're embarrassed and he's to be made an example of. This is fundamentally opposite to the UK sentiment towards justice.

On to domestic UK issues, there was the resentment over the one-sided (at least on paper) extradition treaty with the US. Note also when the act was committed there was no extradition treaty covering this, so the game has changed after the event, and it's widely believed that the US deliberately delayed action to take advantage of this, which as the saying goes, simply isn't cricket. There is also, especially at the time, annoyance at other countries' lack of extraditing people to the UK (ironically, it seems in practice the US has actually been throwing them over to us with vigour).

Then there's the UK government mishandling. Like the way the appeal was arrogantly and off-handedly thrown out by the disliked then-Home Secretary Jacquie Smith. This gave the papers an opportunity to have a go at her and the tired Labour government widely felt to be all too autocratic.

It's now considered a test of the new government's principles, its thumb on the pulse and its willingness to stand up to the US.

I'm not sure how much of this is the doings of his lawyer's PR efforts, but time and again the case has being striking a nerve on numerous issues and he's been on the front pages for years now. It's got to the point that if he does get extradited despite that level of support it's definitely going to seem like something is very wrong somewhere.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Anonymous Psychopath]

That doesn't change the fact that the system was vulnerable in the first place. Punish him for entering illegally but don't make him pay for repairs that should've been made anyway.

That's the same thing as telling someone who's house was robbed that the thief isn't responsible because they should have had better locks.

Clearly the systems should have been protected better. That in no way means it was legal to compromise them, even if doing so was trivial.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Geoffrey.landis]

If he's convicted he gets to go to minimum security federal jail for probably 2-4 years. How is that savage punishment?

I doubt it. First offense, nonviolent crime? A few hundred hours of community service and probation.

Maybe six months jail time, at most, if they want to make a point.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[shutdown -p now]

It costs more for the feds to hold high security prisoners

It doesn't cost the feds anything. It costs you, because your taxes pay for it.

there's nothing he's done that justifies anything more than minimum security.

There's nothing he's done that justifies any jail time whatsoever. That's the point.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[geekoid]

The fact that you have poor security doesn't mean other people are allowed to enter it. As soon as it asks for an ID and/or a password or has a screen indicating 'authorized' personal only you have broken the law.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[geekoid]

What about all the other work people have to do that has nothing to do with repairing the system.

Many logs need to be checked, system rebuild, system wide password changing. A whole shit storm of activity happens. They don't just send a tech to change the password.

Most of what they do won't be in repairing the whole, it will be finding out if he was up to anything else.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Rich0]

Indeed, as a US taxpayer I'd prefer this approach. When he is convicted the British taxpayers can pay to keep him in jail.

Ditto for all those 9/11 suspects that the EU wouldn't extradite without a promise to not seek the death penalty. They should have just let them keep them. It isn't like they want them out on the streets either - then they can deal with the legal mess of trying to keep them in jail forever...

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[RocketRabbit]

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

Your sarcasm meter must be broken.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[RocketRabbit]

If my door is poorly locked and you come in here and start rifling through my shit, I am going to shoot you. I'm sure you thought you were just helping me out by showing me how shitty my door lock was. Uncle Sam I am sure is misunderstanding Gary in the same fashion.

This excuse would not cut it in my house, and does not cut it for Uncle Sam either.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Sabriel]

Wrong. It's more like telling someone whose house was robbed, and guns taken from their glass cabinet, that they are going to be charged with negligence because they did not secure their guns in a steel cabinet as required by law.

Furthermore, the DoD are not ordinary civilians, they are the militaristic arm of a representative government and entrusted with keeping safe the nation's secrets; they must be held to a higher standard.

Until the idiots responsible for leaving the gun safe unlocked are likewise charged, this isn't justice, it's just another naked emperor taking revenge.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[couchslug]

He acted UPON objects in the US, remotely FROM England. Therefore, the crimes were committed in the US, as they would be if he shot across the border.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[couchslug]

"I'm a healthy adult and a trial and/or jail would traumatize me too, especially since I would know that it's going to be a show trial. Even if I were found not guilty of 90% of the counts, they'd still throw me in jail for ten years for 'failure to appear' or something because they got their asses handed to them in the security department."

Me as well, which motivates me not to fuck with stuff that does not BELONG to me.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[newcastlejon]

A burglar enters through a hole in a fence, breaks a window and damages property. If we ignore the criminal side, e.g. trespassing and concentrate on the civl matter of the damaged property should a court order the defendant to pay for the fence?

Now that these vulnerabilities are known publicly the gov't has to deal with them because they're responsible for sealing them. McKinnon will no doubt end up doing hard time but paying to patch the hole he got in through? Don't take the piss.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Trogre]

You mean like you are now?

(I assume that's where /. servers are hosted).

You'd better hope there's no screwy extradition laws in force this week over use of unlicensed patented algorithms (which any software product is pretty much guaranteed to have).

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[neonKow]

He didn't commit the crime in the UK. Just because your physical body is in one place doesn't mean you didn't commit the crime in another. If I hire a hitman to shoot a US citizen in the US, then it's not a UK crime. If I somehow caused servers on US soil to be set on fire, it's also a crime in the US. If I hack into a computer in the US and start deleting data (which is what he is accused of), that's a crime in the US.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[LingNoi]

They need to do all that regardless of knowing someone broke in. If their systems have been using the username admin with no password for many years then everything needs to be checked anyway.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[1 a bee]

If he's convicted he gets to go to minimum security federal jail for probably 2-4 years.

The article argues otherwise. FTFA:

If McKinnon is extradited, he could be given a 70-year sentence in a high-security prison (he would, as an overseas national, be considered a "flight risk", hence imprisonment with violent criminals rather than in an open prison).

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[L4t3r4lu5]

True, but if you walk into a china shop when it's closed because the owner left the door unlocked, take a look around, leave a note saying "I looked around your store. It was kind of nice. HAIL CTHULHU!" and walk out, would you expect the jury to agree that you should receive 50 years in federal prison?

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[L4t3r4lu5]

He didn't allegedly commit any crime. He admitted that he'd done it almost immediately, with a view to doing so in a British court.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[serviscope_minor]

That 's a silly argument to the wrong point. Sure, the security was bad and he wasn't allowed to enter. That's illegal blah blah blah. It still doesn't mean that he created the damage that let him enter. The damage was already there when he came along. So he may have done one illegal thing (entering), but most certainly did not do the other (causing the damage).

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[ultranova]

If you walk into a china shop and kick over all the shelves, smashing all the china, then turn around and tell the shop owner, "These shelves should have been secured better," I'm willing to bet a jury would find you liable for damages.

Except that he didn't break anything. It's more like trying a door to see if it's locked, noticing it's not, and being charged for a new lock. Or, better yet, trying a China shop door, noticing it's open, and being charged for new shelves because someone might have sabotaged the old ones since the door was unlocked.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Crookdotter]

But should you be sent to China for the trial??

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Ihlosi]

There's no reason for him to go into a high security prison. It costs more for the feds to hold high security prisoners, he's never been accused of violence, he seems to be a low risk to guards or other prisoners.

B .. b ... but he's one of THOSE people who can whistle into a phone and launch nuclear missiles!

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[GooberToo]

That doesn't change the fact that the system was vulnerable in the first place. Punish him for entering illegally but don't make him pay for repairs that should've been made anyway.

Good thing that's NOT what they are doing. They are making him pay for the repairs to remove all possible trace of his trespass. Period. That's many things but unreasonable or unfair are certainly not accurate descriptions.

For some reason, you're making the assumption that things need to be done over and above what their original state was. That's simply a very false assumption. Just because someone likely violated their security protocols and created an account without a password is not the same thing as assuming the system failed to meet any and all security requirements.

Bluntly, jail time and heavy fines are absolutely appropriate.

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Therefore, the crimes were committed in the US, as they would be if he shot across the border.

Do you have a cite for this? I can't imagine that it comes up very often, but I would assume that the crime would have been committed where the trigger was pulled, (because that's where the action was, rather than the consequence of the action).

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[Anonymous Cowpat]

how will he serve probation once he's back in the UK? Or will he be essentially imprisoned on the wrong side of the Atlantic for several years so that he can live like a good little citizen of a country which he doesn't want to be in?

Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"???

[RocketRabbit]

"He admitted his crime, apparently freely. That takes bollocks."

Bollocks? Maybe. But I also think it he revealed his guilt (quite extensively to the media, by the way) to show off. A competent lawyer would have told him to keep his mouth shut.

"How charming, Afghanis don't even get a show trial! If McKinnon is extradited you'll see him put in front of jury not of his peers that will find him guilty"

I'm not entirely pleased with what passes for justice around here. It's not perfect in Britain either.

"Oh, spare us. The Crown will not decide this man's fate: no appeal would reach this far up. The new government is halting these procedings (perhaps only temporarily) because we, the people are demanding it not because Her Majesty is having second thoughts.

Please, before you think about making another snarky comment about the political system that spawned yours bear in mind one thing: For some time, the monarch has held much of their power only on the condition that it isn't exercised."

The monarch holds and exercises power quite adroitly. It's just not obvious.

They are trying to lock up the wrong person

[mustafap]

It should be the people responsible for the military IT infrastructure facing court action. It's criminal that a defence system should be left so easily hackable that a lone nutter could access it.

Re:They are trying to lock up the wrong person

[ngc5194]

Just because I don't lock my front door, it doesn't mean that your entering my house without permission suddenly isn't burglary. NASA's security may be crap, but that doesn't excuse the crime.

Re:They are trying to lock up the wrong person

[blair1q]

Blaming the victim isn't justice.

Jailing the criminal is.

Re:They are trying to lock up the wrong person

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope - it's more someone walking into a heavily defended bunker and pointing to the military sitting in it, at the fact they let the massive armed door at their back wide open.

He did not used the most diplomatic way to make that statement, but that will not change the fact.

Unfortunately the military seem to have no sense of humor and want to beat him senseless just for pointing out this embarrassing mistake.

Re:They are trying to lock up the wrong person

[U8MyData]

Replying to those below: When your identity, your money, credit score, or worse is stolen or compromised as a result of the companies/organizations charged with maintaining them fails to secure their systems, your tune will change. Why is it that security is of such national importance, yet these agencies don't practice it? To be fair, it's not right for this guy to have done what he has done; but it is also not right for it to be as easy for him to do as has been alluded.

Re:They are trying to lock up the wrong person

[falzer]

>Have the person who damaged the eye compensate for the lost eye, society gains benefit.
How is there a gain in benefit? At best it is zero sum. You would not argue that society benefits all the more if more peoples' eyes or whatever were lost, would you?

I believe your definition of justice to be bunk, because is there no right that can fix the wrong of murder on a balance sheet.

Imprisoning dangerous people to keep them off the street is good for that reason alone, regardless of perceived justness. Note that I am also against "prison justice", and I am not against rehabilitation. I know people personally who have reformed. Rehabilitation is a separate issue from keeping criminals off the street.

Re:They are trying to lock up the wrong person

[mustafap]

It's a military establishment, and should be protected as such.

Re:They are trying to lock up the wrong person

[AHuxley]

The only part that is "military establishment" is deep in a bunker with any quality.
The rest is just MS admin staff, contractors, mercenaries, sole source contracts, civilian staff ect. Congress critters ensuring jobs for their electorates and supporters.

Re:They are trying to lock up the wrong person

[mustafap]

>But the fact is, general incompetence is simply not criminal.

I think you will find that in the Military, general incompetence is an offence. Try leaving top secret documents on public transport, for example :o)

Re:They are trying to lock up the wrong person

[mustafap]

Find the guy who *walked* into the systems

because they clearly aren't secure *as they should be*

there, fixed that for you

Re:They are trying to lock up the wrong person

[mustafap]

>I'm one of those crazy people who think that the "companies/organizations" are on my side

You are nuts. "companies/organizations" have a *legal* obligation to be on the side of the shareholders. You are just part of the profit generation machine.

Wow, where are you living to have ideas like that?

Savage punishment?

[rewt66]

Which will be what? Imprisonment? Well, that's too bad. Don't break into our computers, and you won't have that problem.

Guantanamo? That's a different matter.

Or is the allegation that US prisons are, in and of themselves, cruel and unusual punishment?

$800,000

[Anonymous Coward]

"His actions, according to US officials, caused networks to shut down, damaged computers and incurred costs of $800,000."

And I wonder how much they've spent on the power play of extraditing him instead of trying him in a British court?

Political payback

[macraig]

It's political payback for McKinnon giving the pompous U.S. government and military a well-deserved black eye.

Re:Political payback

[blair1q]

It's justice for a nutter pretending the law doesn't apply to him.

Re:Political payback

[macraig]

Tony B., is that you?

Re:Political payback

[RocketRabbit]

Ignoring the fact that he actually committed some serious crimes, of course, you are right.

Re:Political payback

[blair1q]

If by B you mean Basil, then, uh, no.

Re:Guy says he discovered evidence of UFOs

[WilyCoder]

haven't you seen the x-files? the govt acts this way to make people believe in UFOs, when in reality, the truth is far stranger than flying metal discs and little green men.

x-files is not entertainment, it is the truth!

I want to believe!

Re:Guy says he discovered evidence of UFOs

[newcastlejon]

Face it: it this was really true they would have sent a wet-worker after him rather than prosecuting.

Re:Should they make a deal

[Jeng]

Just because someone may be good at breaking in, doesn't mean he knows how to secure the systems he is entering.

They need to use him for breaking into stuff, it's what he's good at apparently.

Savage punishment

[Anonymous Coward]

Prison (which depends on violence) qualifies as a savage punishment when the criminal is non-violent. I don't need a lawyer to tell me this. Human nature says so.

Did I just claim that over half of all US prison sentences are savage? You're damn right I did.

Re:Savage punishment

[elrous0]

If this guy gets prison time, it will be in a federal lockup--not some exaggerated, fictional, ass-rape prison like "Oz."

Re:Savage punishment

[starlabs]

So you're saying people like Bernie Madoff or the louts behind the Enron debacle don't deserve prison, because they're "non-violent"? Even though they wiped out people's life savings, or worse? Just because a crime doesn't involve a physical altercation doesn't mean it doesn't warrant stiff prison penalties.

It's you that make me hate him

[jjohnson]

If I'd never heard of McKinnon, and someone told me the whole story start to finish, I'm pretty sure that I'd say "just try him in Britain--you're wasting more money extraditing him than the crime is worth."

But all I've learned about MacKinnon I've learned from /., where an Aspie cracker is a demigod, and a Rorschach blot for the average /. reader to project all his lunatic fears of a fascist/socialist/totalitarian US gov't. It's like with Hans Reiser, who couldn't possibly be guilty, he's just misunderstood--right up to the point where Reiser led police to the body and said "that's where I dumped the ex-wife that I stabbed to death."

So: Fry MacKinnon, just to hear the howls of outraged geeks everywhere who imagine that they're a persecuted minority.

Re:It's you that make me hate him

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and its people like you who are the entire reason why we aren't going to serve up one of our citizens on a plate to you crazies. Everyone knows exactly what US prisons are like. The crime was committed here, so he should serve time here, simple as that. And the sooner they review the extradition treaty the government has with the US, the better, as far as I'm concerned.

Aspergers and Prisons

[abbynormal brain]

If the data is available, I would be interested in learning the death rate for people with asperger syndrome in prison facilities.
(Note: Not to excuse his actions of course)

Inmate: Hey newbie - what's your name?
Asperger Prisoner: #$@#%@! sir
(Prison Alarm)

He won't get extradited

[Rik Sweeney]

All he has to do is complain it's against his fucking Human Rights(TM) since there's a chance that he might be tortured in the US and he'll be let off the hook...

Re:He won't get extradited

[malkavian]

No, he'll just be tried in the UK (and found guilty under the Misuse of Computers act, with a bit of jail time thrown in).
Extradition for this level of offence is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
The part that is cruel is that when you extradite someone, certainly the distance to the US, it makes it FAR harder for friends, family and the support network to get face time visitation.
Removing that from someone is a huge deal, especially when they're not exactly the most stable in the first place.
The part that really gets the goat of most of the UK people is that while the last (Labour) government happily signed their side of the deal, the US conveniently forgot to sign their side (which is still waiting signature), so that the US can happily extradite UK citizens, while the reverse is not true.

Re:He won't get extradited

[Stan92057]

Well just maybe he should have been thinking about that before he did something illegal.Its His fault and his alone that his family will have the hardship of going to the US to support him,hes the one that broke the law,dont blame the US goverment for his and his familys hardships.If he didnt break into US goverment computers he wouldnt be in this mess hes in.

Re:He won't get extradited

[Sabriel]

From 2003 to 2006 the US demanded the UK abide by the treaty despite not having ratified it itself and refusing to abide by it. Tell me, which country acted dishonorably?

The treaty also allows the extradition to the US solely on "reasonable suspicion". The US Supreme Court ruled in Terry vs Ohio that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion. But apparently the US government thinks that brevity shouldn't apply if you're in another country, and sees no problem with depriving you of your liberty, transporting you across seas and trying you in a foreign land based merely on that same level of reasonable suspicion?

(note: I am not saying McKinnon was extradited merely on suspicion - I am however pointing out the emperor's disturbing lack of clothes)

The new UK government should tell the US to go away until it remembers the ideals it was founded on. You know, things like due process, trial by a jury of your peers, no cruel and unusual punishments, that sort of thing.

Given all that I've read so far, the US DoD failed abysmally in its duty to maintain an appropriate level of security. Until the DoD is also held to account, the continued pursuit of McKinnon will remain a horrible farce.

Re:He won't get extradited

[dingram17]

How could McKinnon 'commit crimes in the US' when he's never been to the US? All comes down to the definition of Commit doesn't it? I guess the British retailiation would be to sue a US newspaper for Libel in the UK (under the equally stupid laws there).

Re:He won't get extradited

[rahvin112]

Hey, I admit I don't know how Treaties in the UK are approved, but even if it requires both parliament and the PM to approve it's still going to be a far quicker process than the US approval process. With the requirement of senate consultations and a super majority in the Senate along with the Presidential ratification there hasn't been a treaty ratified by the US in less than 3 years in 20 years. If the treaty is ratified it's enforceable from the original symbolic signing by the executive. It's a slow process, but regardless that's NOT an excuse to violate a treaty.

What the due process rules have to do with this case is absolutely nothing. The gentleman in question will be afforded all due process rights when he appears before the court. He's also had ample opportunity to prove the US has no case at his extradition hearing which your courts upheld as a valid and meeting the requirements of the statue and treaty.

And much like the other supporters you suggest that the UK break a treaty negotiated in good faith, to prevent cross-border crime, for the sole reason of making the US remember it's founding principles and allow Juries and no cruel and unusual punishment? What does ANY of that have to do with this case? The answer is not a damn thing. So you support the breaking of a treaty for no reason other than you are mad at the US for other completely unrelated reasons. Great idea there, how about the US impose a Naval blockade on the UK and destroy the Channel Tunnel because British soldiers burned the White House in 1812. It makes as much sense to do that as what you suggest. And while were at it why not ban all commerce with the UK because of the tea tax on the colonies. Yea, lets engage in retaliation for unrelated incidents.

And your final suggestion is that because the Victim was lax in security that until the Victim is punished the criminal should not be punished. (Do you actually think the US didn't up security and fix the problems?) So if you have a weak lock on your house and someone breaks in rumages through your possessions and takes a few choice items, they can't prosecute the criminal until you yourself are jailed for having a weak lock. Makes perfect sense, I knew the British had a fascination with punishing Victims that defended themselves, but now you want to punish them for NOT defending themselves as well. Sounds like any crime committed the victim goes to jail or the criminal isn't prosecuted at all. Makes perfect sense!

How about you be honest and just admit that you don't want the UK to have relations with the US and that the UK should sever all relationships with the US including dissolving NATO, ending all cross border trade and commerce, severing the cross Atlantic telephone and internet connection, stopping the purchase of all US weapon systems (including the new joint strike fighter), ending all cross-Atlantic travel, baring currency trade and seizing all US property in the UK and jailing every American in the UK for crimes against Humanity for being alive.

If McKinnon isn't extradited it should be precedent to allow anyone in the US to hack into any UK based computer system for any reason and publicly disclose anything found without fear of extradition to the UK.

Re:He won't get extradited

[Finallyjoined!!!]

You really don't understand, do you?
Pah!

Re:He won't get extradited

[Sabriel]

First up, the wind is blowing in the wrong direction for you to be spitting so much hyperbole. I'm not UK. I am Australian, in Australia, on the other side of the bloody planet, and I think both sides of the Atlantic are full of crap (my own government too, just to pre-empt anything there).

By your own admittance, until the US actually ratifies a treaty, the original signing is SYMBOLIC.

What part of "you should not have to obey a contract that the other guy doesn't have to obey" do you not understand?

It's like making a promise with your fingers crossed behind your back, yet expecting the other guy to uphold his side of the deal and put down the money - while you go argue with your mum and dad for the next 3+ years as to whether you really can go halves in that new go-kart with Timmy.

Oh, except that people's lives are on the line. Case in point, the Act has already been used to extradite a man later found innocent - and such is the stupidity of this treaty, he had to plead guilty to a fictional offence to get back home! http://www.noliberties.com/stories_as.htm

Next, due process and cruel punishment. As I mentioned, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a police officer having only reasonable suspicion may only briefly detain a person. And yet the US government apparently finds it acceptable to extradite foreign citizens - depriving them of their liberty far, far longer than a mere frisking by an officer - on the same level of evidence.

(and to pre-empt again, the UK government was also a bunch of asshats to agree to this)

"Due process" means, in part, applying the law equally to all. Male and female, black and white, citizen and alien. Including that of the constitutional right to liberty and due process... and both the Fourth and the Fifth (and the Fourteenth) use "person", not "citizen".

Aside, I was under the impression that the United States was opposed to making people into criminals retroactively? The extradition act was ratified in 2006, but even if we were to accept your idea that the President's symbolic signature in 2003 was good enough to make it legal, McKinnon's hacking took place in 2001 and 2002...

And your final suggestion is that because the Victim was lax in security that until the Victim is punished the criminal should not be punished.

Re-read that suggestion. I said no such thing. I said those responsible should be held to account. McKinnon has been facing extradition for over four years now, and yet to the best of my knowledge the US military has not indicated that it is even pursuing anyone for the lax security that allowed McKinnon to gain access.

We have here the online equivalent of leaving your post unattended, allowing what a US prosecutor called "the biggest military computer hack of all time" and yet there is no news of any moves to investigate, discipline, let alone court martial, any of the military's IT personnel (ir)responsible? If you can find links to the contrary, please cite them!

Finally, I'm well aware that the only reason I'm alive and speaking English is because of the contributions of the United States in various wars. But if anyone, especially an American, thinks that gives the US government some special right to throw its weight around, then I consider such a person to be a disgrace to the ideals invested in the US Bill of Rights, which I pretty much wish we had down here.

Being the biggest and the best means showing restraint, and sometimes being the biggest and the best means taking one on the chin, because to do anything else is a fall from grace.

Re:He won't get extradited

[Sabriel]

I must correct myself in that second-last paragraph. It's a major reason, but not the only reason.

Re:He won't get extradited

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Wow, you've managed to get EVERYTHING ass-backwards.

What gets my goat is that a UK citizen damaged US government property

The fact that the allegedly damaged property belonged to the US Government is neither here nor there. The Government is not sacred.

(you have no convincing argument that what he did didn't cost money and time to repair)

On the contrary, no convincing argument has been put forward to support any proferred quantification of alleged damage.

a bunch of British are trying to convince their government that he shouldn't be extradited to the country he caused damage to for trial.

The country that he allegedly caused damage to is right at the top of the list of people who should not be allowed to try him. For the same reason that we don't allow any other victims to decide guilt or sentence

if this Jackass can get no punishment for crimes he committed in the US

The proposal is not so much to block the extradition as to try him in the UK, under UK laws. This would not mean that he would not be punished, but would mean that he would be protected by double jeopardy from any further prosecution, and is a far more watertight solution than simply blocking the extradition.

If this was some American hacker that had breached MI5,6 or Scotland yard and disclosed confidential or private information publicly you would be demanding extradition and long sentencing for the "hacker yank".

Some feeble-minded people might be, I hope that the US would not provide it.

Re:He won't get extradited

[Anonymous Cowpat]

The gentleman in question will be afforded all due process rights when he appears before the court.

He'll be tried immediately, having had ample opportunity to prepare before getting on the plane with his US lawyer provided at the US taxpayer's expense, will he?

He's also had ample opportunity to prove the US has no case at his extradition hearing which your courts upheld as a valid

You clearly haven't been following the story. He has had NO opportunity to prove that the US has no case, because the US doesn't have to prove that it does have a case. It has to do little more than name the person that it wants. That's what the treaty says, so the spineless judges are going along with it.

And much like the other supporters you suggest that the UK break a treaty negotiated in good faith, to prevent cross-border crime

It was negotiated in good faith to help rapidly deal with seriously nefarious types like terrorists, not to deal with people accused of actions which could net them no more than a few months imprisonment in the UK. The US is abusing our good faith, and I don't think there's anything wrong with putting our collective foot down.

As for the rest of your absurd proposal of declaring war on the US' only major ally, I can only assume that you're insane.

Let Me Correctly State The Hacked Operating

[Anonymous Coward]

system. For the nth time:

WINDOZE.

Technical note: In order for Microslop
applications to work for ANYONE, they must be HACKED !

Yours in Tashkent,
Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

 

I don't think it means what you think it means

[sh00z]

Are you talking about Coprolalia, which is one possible (but not the only) symptom of Tourette Syndrome?

JackOfKent looks at this from a lawyer perspective

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Most of what you think you know about this case is wrong. Forget about UFOs.

Also, what Gary did is trivial, barely even worth the term "hacking" (summary: he used an off-the-shelf product called RemotelyAnywhere to access completely open internet-connected Windows desktops that had the default password set).

If you want to go back to the source legal materials, this set of articles is particularly interesting:

Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3

There is a final part coming too.

DAMIT!

[abbynormal brain]

Yeah - that's the one I think I meant - DAMIT!

Re:Who cares what diseases or afflictions he has?

[jjohnson]

I can tell you from my personaly experience as an Aspy that we live an almost normal life.

That's the point: McKinnon's Aspergers is being offered as a reason why he is somehow less culpable for his crimes than a non-Aspy (fucking neuro-typicals!).

I know that Asperger's can be difficult to live with, so congratulations on finding an almost normal life for yourself.

how about we NOT try him on Slashdot?

[sloth jr]

If his mental state is relevant, that is for a court and justice to decide. I'm sure I am not alone in thinking that I don't have all the facts necessary to make an informed opinion on his alleged charges - so let's not.

The long time is over embarrassing the DOD IT over

[Joe The Dragon]

The long time is over embarrassing the DOD IT over there poor passwords and the 800,000 was the bill to fix the systems.

Dig deeper

[Anonymous Coward]

The act of holding a person against their will (prison) requires violence or threat thereof, by definition. It is an act of coercion, and coercion is only justified in defense of coercion. When the criminal has committed no violence himself, then a punishment of prison is automatically worse than the crime, and government becomes the greater criminal.

The proper punishment in this case is restitution, not violence. Terms of restitution should be decided according to the severity of the crime. But again, under a moral and just system of law, a non-violent crime does not justify a punishment of violence.

Re:Guy says he discovered evidence of UFOs

[Lunix Nutcase]

If they were really trying to hide such evidence they would have simply had him killed. All this publicity would do is make sure that everyone know that they were hiding such evidence which would pretty much go completely against your premise.

Are Slashdotters too emotional?

[Talizorah]

If NASA was specifically allotted funds and resources to maintain a security infrastructure, and they failed to meet their obligations in creating or maintaining what was specifically dictated of that infrastructure, then that is an entirely separate (civil) issue.

It is also a scenario of supposition introduced to this discussion by Slashdotters who seem incapable of acknowledging the real and only issue: whether or not McKinnon should face extradition and be held accountable for the crimes that he has admitted to committing.

Gaining unlawful access to NASA computers, committing obstruction, defacement (leaving notes), and making threats, are all crimes under British and American law. The US has every right to demand that McKinnon be extradited to face charges for committing those crimes against the US government and its agencies. The British government would likely make the same demands if an American intruded into their computer systems unlawfully.

McKinnon's motivations, rationale, or intentions for committing these crimes might provide a compelling emotional defense to those sympathetic of his condition during a trial. But they hold no relevance to the issue of whether or not McKinnon should actually face trial. Having an inquisitive nature powerful enough to compel you into breaking into a neighbor's residence does not absolve you of accountability under the law for acting on such an impulse to commit a crime. The same is true for McKinnon.

The notes that McKinnon left on NASA computers were not the harmless ruminations of an inquisitive man-child either. They were the rantings, criticisms, and threats of an inflated ego who clearly enjoyed a sense of control and influence over the government networks he had intruded into.

Re:Are Slashdotters too emotional?

[ynohoo]

If the US did not have such a fondness for extreme prison sentence length, it would be a simpler issue. To quote the article:

If McKinnon is extradited, he could be given a 70-year sentence in a high-security prison (he would, as an overseas national, be considered a "flight risk", hence imprisonment with violent criminals rather than in an open prison). If tried in the UK - his home country, and where he was living when he committed the crimes he admits to - the sentence would be more lenient. As the human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, QC told me: "The real impropriety of the McKinnon case is the disproportionality in the merciful sentence that he would have received here and the sentence that awaits him."

Re:Are Slashdotters too emotional?

[Talizorah]

I do not know which article you are quoting, but the syntax, rationale, and conclusions of the paragraph you've provided are wrong.

"If McKinnon is extradited, he could be given a 70-year sentence in a high-security prison (he would, as an overseas national, be considered a "flight risk", hence imprisonment with violent criminals rather than in an open prison)."

If McKinnon was tried, convicted, and sentenced to serve time in prison, then he would obviously no longer be a "flight risk" (as he would already be imprisoned). Therefore, if McKinnon was placed in a "high-security prison" (what we call "maximum security" in the US), it would not be because he was a "flight risk".

Neither extradition, nor conviction, would guarantee McKinnon prison time in a maximum security prison by default. The ignorant assertion that they somehow would is sensationalist nonsense, and a gross misrepresentation of the American justice system.

If McKinnon was placed in a maximum security prison, he would not be housed with violent criminals. He would be confined to his own individual cell and have no contact with the other inmates. This is IF he was placed in a maximum security prison.

McKinnon falls under the category of what we define as a "white collar criminal" in the US. These are criminals who post little physical risk to the public and are non-violent. They are placed in minimum security prisons.

"If tried in the UK - his home country, and where he was living when he committed the crimes he admits to - the sentence would be more lenient."

Where McKinnon was living when he committed the crime is irrelevant. When McKinnon unlawfully accessed US computers, he committed a crime on US soil, involving US property. If he didn't want to come under US law or jurisdiction, then he shouldn't have compromised US government computer systems.

According to the House of Lords judgment in Mckinnon V Government of The United States of America and Another, McKinnon's crimes have equivalents under British law for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. The maximum sentence under US law provided in your quote is 70 years. Both of these numbers are arbitrary however as any reasonable person is aware that under both American and British law, individuals rarely receive the maximum sentence for their crimes, other than in the most egregious of crimes and circumstance.

If we are to consider the maximum sentence facing McKinnon, then should we not also consider the scope of the crimes for which he is accused?

The allegations against McKinnon can be viewed in the April 2007 High Court Judgment. Paragraph 4 outlines data deleted by McKinnon, which includes:

(1) Critical operating system files from nine computers, the deletion of which shut down the entire US Army's Military District of Washington network of over 2000 computers for 24 hours, significantly disrupting Governmental functions [...]

(2) 2,455 user accounts on a US Army computer that controlled access to an Army computer network, causing those computers to reboot and become inoperable [...]

(3) Critical Operating system files and logs from computers at US Naval Weapons Station Earle, one of which was used for monitoring the identity, location, physical condition, staffing and battle readiness of Navy ships. Deletion of these files rendered the Base's entire network of over 300 computers inoperable at a critical time immediately following 11 September 2001 [...]

What a laugh this man must be having at the expense of American and British relations, judicial process, and the spirit of our common law with his long line of vexatious appeals.

What if it wasn't the US?

[Andy Smith]

Suppose he had hacked in to a Chinese system and the Chinese government wanted to try him as a spy, with a possible sentence of death. Are people more/less supportive of his deportation?

(This is just a hypothetical of course. I don't know if China has an extradition agreement with the UK, but I would assume not.)

Re:What if it wasn't the US?

[tehcyder]

(This is just a hypothetical of course. I don't know if China has an extradition agreement with the UK, but I would assume not.)

The UK won't extradite to somewhere where the accused is liable to the death penalty, so for instance they wouldn't extradite an alleged murderer to Texas. Or China.

Actually, When You Think About It...

[LifesABeach]

FTFA McKinnon suffers from a "serious major depressive disorder . . . aggravated and complicated by anxiety and panic attacks with multiple psychosomatic symptoms on a background of his having Asperger's syndrome"

If this person is tried in the U.S. two things will surly happen, 1. If one is insane, they are not responsible for their actions. And 2. He gets a free round trip to the U.S. and back home. Unless...

You see, having a serious major depressive disorder with an aggravated and complicated by anxiety and panic attacks with multiple psychosomatic symptoms is condsidered to be actually a healthy dose of realism. He may be invited to apply for a H1B1 visa to work at the NSA. And given his level symptoms, may be eligible for a more senior position at the NSA.

Re:Should they make a deal

[AHuxley]

A MS boondoggle and faith based infomatics over generations is hard to change.
If they all use MS they are of no use to any interrogator.
GUI, move mouse, write report, it crashes, print, read email ect.
Compartmentalization and fast training most grow up with MS.
Or the whole system is one big honeypot to trap hackers and get refilled by contractors.

The Monarchy of UK in is splendour.

[jbssm]

This all affair is silly, if you really look at it. Sure, the guy did something illegal (in USA, I'm not sure if it was illegal when it happened in UK) but the guy didn't harm anyone or anything.

But mostly this shows how outdated the laws of his Holy Majesty country are when it comes to respect the people. In practically any country of EU, (and I would bet, the civilized world), you cannot extradite you own citizen to be presented to trial in a country where the penalty for the crime committed could be higher than the one at your country. Which makes all the sense in a sovereign country that values it's citizens.

Of course that doesn't apply to British, as doesn't apply for instance the right not to pass at body scanners in Airports asking to be manually searched, or where all your lie in the city is a huge Big Brother novel with all the security cameras around. Then of course, they don't have this basic laws that protect us from the state called "Constitution", so how can they complain about all this?

Time to get rid of the queen and get a real constitution, eh mate!

Re:Guy says he discovered evidence of UFOs

[unity100]

your logic assumes mi5, brit govt. are not protecting the guy, due to its value, and already have working with him to gain all the information he uncovered.

even if we accept your approach, it still doesnt explain the fact that despite pentagon, other offices, and even some hardware of u.s. military have been raped by chinese, and russia, and even got trojan horse chip containing hardware and chips implanted through various firms, u.s. still doesnt do the same kind of stampede.

flamebait.

[unity100]

why. if you have mod points, use them logically. not like a drunk, right wing extremist baboon.

Where's the ethics?

[Anonymous Coward]

He shouldn't of messed with something that wasn't his or wasn't given permission to access. Leave things alone that don't belong to you! I don't feel sorry for this guy.

Re:Where's the ethics?

[master_p]

Where is the ethics of making a man a prison bitch just because he logged on remotely in an open network?

Re:Asperger's syndrome

[greentshirt]

here is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it actually exist.

Asperger-monsters are the most self-centered, selfish pieces of shit on the planet. Devoid of empathy, social reasoning, social context, or self awareness, they are subhuman meat-calculators, who live to collect and catalogue items like barcodes and bottletops.

So you've seen manifestations of a condition which you deny exists? Fascinating.

Re:Should they make a deal

[Rorschach1]

"They need to use him for breaking into stuff, it's what he's good at apparently."

But he's NOT good at keeping his mouth shut and not getting caught, which is a bigger requirement for that sort of work. He might find work for a private firm, but no sensible government agency would hire him.

Re:Asperger's syndrome

[Beale]

Devoid of empathy, social reasoning, social context, or self awareness, they are subhuman meat-calculators,

All I know is that beef == 48879. Oh, and 3735928559 if you kill it.

Re: Double standard.

[parazite.org]

Tell that to the judges when they "authorize" civil commitment "treatment" "services" (services which cant be pre-emptively refused, a bit like SPAM services by Alan Ralsky) based on "diagnosis" on having these "diseases" and being "danger" to self. Doctor's pseudoreligion for racketeering.

Extradition treaty?

[rainmouse]

This extradition case is the vanguard on the war against UK personal freedom. The right not to be extradited to America without any local trial or evidence produced, where America have many differing states that allow them to not only choose which local laws best suit the conviction but which state holds the longest sentencing (Texas is popular for this I believe). Sounds unlikely? Remember the NatWest Three, were three British citizens ended up being extradited to Texas and consequently were convicted of an offence committed in the UK against a UK bank, where said offence is not even illegal in the UK. Luckily for Americans the extradition treaty is strictly a one way process.

The new UK government opposed the Gary McKinnon extradition but were defeated 290 to 236 votes in the house of commons. Of course now they are at the helm it seems likely to me the move will now be blocked.

Re:Extradition treaty?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

consequently were convicted of an offence committed in the UK against a UK bank,

Actually, they had to plead guilty after continuing the case became unsustainable. They were prevented from leaving Houston, and had to try and find some sort of employment to both support themselves, and pay for their defence. After 18 months of that clearly impossible situation, they switched pleas. Of course, the 18 months essentially imprioned in Houston didn't count towards time served, and they're out the money spent on their defence, and 18 months of substnatially reduced earnings because they were just dumped in a foreign land and told to support themselves.

Perhaps the laughably unfair process which persons extradited find themselves in is also a reason for widespread opposition. Using extradition to get your own people back is one thing, using it to send someone else to face a foreign court which will make no allowances for that situation is another.

The case should be ready to go as soon as the person steps off the plane, and legal & accomodation costs should be borne by the government.

Still?

[MoeDrippins]

> Gary McKinnon, still suffering from Asperger's syndrome,...

Is Asperger's something one can stop suffering from? I realize other temporary things were listed that I cut off so maybe that's what the "still" is referring to, but that read funny to me.

Canada's version

[msobkow]

Canada has a flamboyant pro-cannabis activist named Marc Emery who's going through a similar extradition process and some outrage about loss of sovereignty if he's extradited.

He's looking at beaucoup time (Re:Little sympathy)

[droopus]

Are you kidding? I just came through the federal court system, and I highly doubt you understand "the way sentencing is done in the US."

Sure Booker made sentencing guidelines advisory, but judges by and large go by the sentencing tables, and AUSA's will scream blue murder if judges downwardly depart without a damn good reason,. And, Asperger's is not a good reason, only 5K1.1 motions work for them. (e.g being a rat.)

Federal sentencing is very formulaic and due to the insanity of the grand jury farce system, anyone can end up looking at INSANE time for what might seem to you to be an innocuous crime. And the Government has NO issue whatsoever with making up charges, so they can conveniently drop them later in a plea bargain.

Need an example? I was indicted for five life terms, plus 105 years for causing damage to a portable toilet. I am dead serious. I was forced to sign for five years, and did 52 months (good time) in a very unpleasant FCI in Ohio, and am still on home confinement right now.

This guy is probably charged with a violation, 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2) which refers to US Sentencing Guideline 2B1.1 (Larceny, Embezzlement, and Other Forms of Theft; Offenses Involving Stolen Property; Property Damage or Destruction; Fraud and Deceit; Forgery; Offenses Involving Altered or Counterfeit Instruments Other than Counterfeit Bearer Obligation of the United States) It has a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more.

Calculate his (or any) federal sentence here.

It drives me fucking NUTS when people think they understand the US court/justice system because they watch Law and Order.

Re:Who cares what diseases or afflictions he has?

[Cyberllama]

It is being offered as a kind of defense and it should not be. It is not relevant or appropriate. What is relevant and appropriate is the fact that he charges against him far, far exceed the magnitude of the crime and do not rise to the level of extradition. There's no reason why he could not or should not be tried in a UK court for a crime committed on UK soil.

Re:Guy says he discovered evidence of UFOs

[Lunix Nutcase]

your logic assumes mi5, brit govt. are not protecting the guy, due to its value, and already have working with him to gain all the information he uncovered.

Yes, my logic definitely doesn't entail such ridiculously convoluted excuses in order to explain away all the issues with the premise of my argument.

Re:Should they make a deal

[AHuxley]

The US mil and its love for MS.

Talk about double standards!

[ultimad]

US is hell bent on getting McKinnon, but at the same time gives no shit about India's extradition request of Warren Anderson accused of Bhopal disaster, killing 15000+ people in or David Headley, alleged mastermind behind Mumbai terrorist attacks, killing 200+.

But the UK is not within US jurisdiction

[DABANSHEE]

If Brits in the UK are obliged to comply with US laws then by default it means we all fall within the legal jurisdiction of every nation in the world simultaneously, regardless of where on earth we are.

Re:But the UK is not within US jurisdiction

[fredrik70]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they're not *required* to extradite him, but if UK don't send him over, then the risk is that US will flick UK the bird next time UK wants someone extradited.

Countries also have deals where they promise to send over anyone the other country believes to have committed a crime (within reason I suppose).

That's why all british gangsters went to Spain back in the day, spain refused to extradite anyone from Spain to UK due to tensions over Gibraltar

Re:But the UK is not within US jurisdiction

[Ihlosi]

If you hack into an AMERICAN computer then yes, you fall within the legal jurisdiction of the USA.

If you're physically present in the UK and break UK laws, you fall within the jurisdiction of the UK and it's their darned job to make sure that their laws are followed, i.e. punish you for breaking them.

What's so hard to understand about this?

Re:But the UK is not within US jurisdiction

[tehcyder]

but if UK don't send him over, then the risk is that US will flick UK the bird next time UK wants someone extradited.

I thought that the whole problem is the lop-sided nature of the agreement between the US and the UK, whereby we (the UK) hand over anyone the US wants, while the US never allows extradition of its own citizens?

Re:Guy says he discovered evidence of UFOs

[jimicus]

The idea that we've already been contacted by UFOs is seen as so ridiculous by the majority of people that the more evidence you provide, the more it appears that you're a raving nutjob.

In short, if they were really trying to hide such evidence (wholly unnecessary), they wouldn't need to have him killed. In fact, it's probably better to let him live because it'll mean that any evidence that does come out (however genuine it is) will be viewed with a pretty high degree of scepticism.

Re:Should they make a deal

[L4t3r4lu5]

Want to be a pen-tester for the same guys McKinnon accessed? Here you go:

Username: Admin
Password: password

Go root some machines.

Re:The long time is over embarrassing the DOD IT o

[redscare2k4]

800,000 that should have been spent in the first place to secure the network.

US already flicked the bird several times.

[Anonymous Coward]

US already flicked the bird several times. As when they refused to allow the USAF pilots to be requested in court, not for criminal charge, but to answer questions.

Re:Guy says he discovered evidence of UFOs

[Lunix Nutcase]

And that evidence would be what? Those fake crop circles? Manipulated photos? Grain, low resolution videos of space debris?

Re:Guy says he discovered evidence of UFOs

[jimicus]

Bear in mind that I'm entirely in the realms of hypothesis at this point.

About the only evidence that would be even remotely interesting would be some sort of written evidence of two-way communication with any aliens - and it'd immediately be denounced as fake regardless of how true it really was.

(I don't actually think it's terribly likely - any alien species that had the ability to cover the distances required to visit us would be so far advanced that there would be no point whatsoever in bothering).

Re:Asperger's syndrome

[Toonol]

So you've seen manifestations of a condition which you deny exists? Fascinating.

He's seen manifestations of personality traits, nothing else. If you want to give a mix of selfishness, awkwardness, and shyness a name and classify it as a syndrome, go ahead; but it's meaningless definition shuffling.

Re:Don't be modest.

[elrous0]

First of all, most western countries had the death penalty up until pretty recently (the UK, for example only abolished it in 1969), we're just one of the last ones to still have it.

Incarceration of minors as adults (including the death penalty).

Not true anymore. Minors can no longer receive the death penalty in the U.S.

Incarceration of mentally ill people (including death penalty).

True, but rare. And I'm pretty sure that every country has a provision for secure detention of the mentally ill of some sort. I presume your country doesn't just let its sociopaths and psychopaths roam the streets, no?

Re:Severe medical condition??

[tehcyder]

Since when is Asperger's a severe medical condition? Half the slashdot audience probably has it (and I'm only partly joking here).

No, half the slashdot audience tries to excuse their social inadequacy, emotional stuntedness and lack of empathy by calling it Asperger's.

Re:Exactly. Why Gov. comps. on public networks?

[adolf]

[sarcasm] Right. Because satellite networks are somehow inherently more secure than terrestrial networks. [/sarcasm]

Re:Guy says he discovered evidence of UFOs

[unity100]

yet, you do the same for your own argument.

Re:Don't be modest.

[Anonymous Cowpat]

First of all, most western countries had the death penalty up until pretty recently (the UK, for example only abolished it in 1969), we're just one of the last ones to still have it.

You got rid of it in 1972, and brought it back in 1976. Even Russia is ahead on this (at least judicially)

'My son was raped in jail - the crime was ignored'

[westlake]

The guy would rather go to jail in the UK then one of your rape prisons for decades, what a surprise!

He may find the UK prison no safer:

British jails are failing to investigate serious allegations of male rape, according to the prisons ombudsman.

Stephen Shaw's concerns, which are expressed in a report into the alleged rape of a prisoner who had Asperger's syndrome and learning difficulties, are likely to place a new focus on a subject that is hardly ever discussed within the prison system.

His comments are made in an official report into the case of "Mark", a 21-year-old man with Asperger's syndrome, learning difficulties and a history of self-harm, who was remanded to Altcourse prison in Liverpool in 2007. It was recommended that Mark, whose name has been changed to protect his identity, be remanded into a psychiatric unit, but there were no places available.

Despite his vulnerable nature, he was placed on a wing with sex offenders and was allegedly raped by a cellmate who had attempted to assault him several weeks earlier. He attempted to throw himself off a prison landing shortly after the alleged incident and is now in a psychiatric unit.

Files relating to the case have gone missing, making the job of investigating the rape allegation an almost impossible task. Merseyside Police attempted a scientific examination after the incident but, according to Jane, her son's mattress and clothes were swapped within hours of the alleged assault having taken place.

Mark's case has been pursued by the Howard League which, following a two-year battle, believes it has won vital recognition of the issue from the ombudsman.

Experts say it is likely that incidents of rape in British prisons are heavily under-reported. According to figures released by the government in response to parliamentary questions, there were 119 allegations of sexual assault in prison in 2008, but only 33 were subject to a PSO1300 investigation.

"There are clear reasons why rape and sexual assault would go unreported in prison," [the assistant director of the Howard League] said. "Not only will it be difficult to prove in many instances, but telling a member of staff that you have been raped would see prisoners ostracised and vulnerable to bullying. We believe the 119 recorded incidents of sexual assault in prison are likely to be a serious underestimation of the problem. In that context, the fact that only 33 internal investigations were then commissioned seems a pitiful response from the authorities."

'My son was raped in jail - the crime was ignored' [May 2, 2010]