America Versus the UFO Hacker

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

America Versus the UFO Hacker

Posted by kdawson on Tuesday June 8, 2010 @08:40AM from the keeping-promises dept.

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."

83 of 452 comments (clear)

Aliens! by InsertWittyNameHere · 2010-06-08 08:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

Just the fact that the US is pushing so hard for this makes people believe that the US government has UFOs and aliens.
1. Re:Aliens! by Tekfactory · 2010-06-08 08:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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.
2. Re:Aliens! by SplicerNYC · 2010-06-08 08:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
3. Re:Aliens! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-06-08 08:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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...
4. Re:Aliens! by flaming+error · 2010-06-08 08:58 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I'm not sure Arizona thought this through - the little buggers are expensive to deport.
5. Re:Aliens! by X0563511 · 2010-06-08 08:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
6. Re:Aliens! by Em+Emalb · 2010-06-08 09:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Sent from your iPad.
7. Re:Aliens! by LEMONedIScream · 2010-06-08 09:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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?)
8. Re:Aliens! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-08 09:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:Aliens! by blair1q · 2010-06-08 09:30 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  That's funny. That's just what they said about you.
10. Re:Aliens! by confused+one · 2010-06-08 09:31 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
11. Re:Aliens! by AltairDusk · 2010-06-08 09:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
12. Re:Aliens! by vlm · 2010-06-08 09:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
13. Re:Aliens! by AGMW · 2010-06-08 09:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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!
  
  --
  Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
  handmadehands.co.uk
14. Re:Aliens! by X0563511 · 2010-06-08 10:05 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Extradition treaty .
  You're right. They asked for it, and are (trying to, probably will it seems) get the jurisdiction. Case is not closed.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
15. Re:Aliens! by MakinBacon · 2010-06-08 10:09 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  No, Grays as in Asgard.
16. Re:Aliens! by brainiac+ghost1991 · 2010-06-08 10:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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!
17. Re:Aliens! by shutdown+-p+now · 2010-06-08 11:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
18. Re:Aliens! by gnasher719 · 2010-06-08 11:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
19. Re:Aliens! by Beyond_GoodandEvil · 2010-06-08 12:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
20. Re:Aliens! by adamofgreyskull · 2010-06-08 13:50 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
21. Re:Aliens! by LingNoi · 2010-06-08 15:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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!
22. Re:Aliens! by LingNoi · 2010-06-08 15:24 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
23. Re:Aliens! by Cyberllama · 2010-06-08 16:01 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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?
24. Re:Aliens! by Cyberllama · 2010-06-08 16:18 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
25. Re:Aliens! by dbIII · 2010-06-08 19:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
26. Re:Aliens! by L4t3r4lu5 · 2010-06-08 20:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
27. Re:Aliens! by redscare2k4 · 2010-06-08 21:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
28. Re:Aliens! by Quantumstate · 2010-06-08 21:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
29. Re:Aliens! by imakemusic · 2010-06-09 00:53 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
Still suffering ??? by capnchicken · 2010-06-08 08:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

--
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
This is why he has to be tried over here by Tekfactory · 2010-06-08 08:46 · Score: 5, Informative

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."
1. Re:This is why he has to be tried over here by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-08 08:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:This is why he has to be tried over here by soupd · 2010-06-08 09:06 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:This is why he has to be tried over here by DrGamez · 2010-06-08 10:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
Savage punishment? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-08 08:47 · Score: 2, Funny

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.
NASA and the Pentagon?!? by wbav · 2010-06-08 08:47 · Score: 4, Funny

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."

--

=================
Unix is very user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are.
1. Re:NASA and the Pentagon?!? by Brett+Buck · 2010-06-08 08:50 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
That always makes me suspicious by Gramie2 · 2010-06-08 08:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.
1. Re:That always makes me suspicious by Jeng · 2010-06-08 08:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
2. Re:That always makes me suspicious by wondafucka · 2010-06-08 09:00 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  postmodernsideshow.com
3. Re:That always makes me suspicious by ShadowRangerRIT · 2010-06-08 09:02 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
4. Re:That always makes me suspicious by elrous0 · 2010-06-08 09:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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).
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
5. Re:That always makes me suspicious by ShadowRangerRIT · 2010-06-08 09:31 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
6. Re:That always makes me suspicious by ShadowRangerRIT · 2010-06-08 09:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
7. Re:That always makes me suspicious by gmhowell · 2010-06-08 12:51 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  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!
  
  --
  Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
"UFO Hacker" by uofitorn · 2010-06-08 08:48 · Score: 2, Funny

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?

--
"What kind of music do pirates listen to?" -Paul Maud'dib
"Yeeeaaarrrrr n' Bee!!" -Stilgar, Leader of Sietch Tabr
1. Re:"UFO Hacker" by DriedClexler · 2010-06-08 09:04 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Little sympathy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-08 08:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Little sympathy by selven · 2010-06-08 09:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
2. Re:Little sympathy by malkavian · 2010-06-08 09:28 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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).
3. Re:Little sympathy by martin-boundary · 2010-06-08 17:25 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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!
Most hilarious summary ever by PCM2 · 2010-06-08 08:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

--
Breakfast served all day!
1. Re:Most hilarious summary ever by Kaemaril · 2010-06-08 08:59 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  > 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.
2. Re:Most hilarious summary ever by elrous0 · 2010-06-08 09:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
3. Re:Most hilarious summary ever by Purity+Of+Essence · 2010-06-08 09:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I agree. Having the highest incarceration rate in the world is an example that all free nations should aspire to. USA #1!
  
  --
  +0 Meh
Where do you get "savage punishment"??? by georgewilliamherbert · 2010-06-08 08:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"??? by Local+ID10T · 2010-06-08 09:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
2. Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"??? by PCM2 · 2010-06-08 09:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Breakfast served all day!
3. Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"??? by GooberToo · 2010-06-08 09:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
4. Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"??? by Renraku · 2010-06-08 09:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
5. Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"??? by Vahokif · 2010-06-08 09:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"??? by Vahokif · 2010-06-08 09:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  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.
7. Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"??? by GooberToo · 2010-06-08 09:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
8. Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"??? by malkavian · 2010-06-08 09:42 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"??? by DaveGod · 2010-06-08 10:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
10. Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"??? by couchslug · 2010-06-08 12:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
11. Re:Where do you get "savage punishment"??? by LingNoi · 2010-06-08 15:51 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  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.
They are trying to lock up the wrong person by mustafap · 2010-06-08 08:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

--
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
Political payback by macraig · 2010-06-08 08:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's political payback for McKinnon giving the pompous U.S. government and military a well-deserved black eye.
1. Re:Political payback by blair1q · 2010-06-08 09:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's justice for a nutter pretending the law doesn't apply to him.
Re:Guy says he discovered evidence of UFOs by WilyCoder · 2010-06-08 08:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:Should they make a deal by Jeng · 2010-06-08 09:00 · Score: 3, Informative

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.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Savage punishment by Anonymous Coward · 2010-06-08 09:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Savage punishment by elrous0 · 2010-06-08 09:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If this guy gets prison time, it will be in a federal lockup--not some exaggerated, fictional, ass-rape prison like "Oz."
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
2. Re:Savage punishment by starlabs · 2010-06-08 09:43 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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.
JackOfKent looks at this from a lawyer perspective by Richard+W.M.+Jones · 2010-06-08 09:39 · Score: 4, Informative

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.

--
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Re:He won't get extradited by malkavian · 2010-06-08 09:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

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:Guy says he discovered evidence of UFOs by Lunix+Nutcase · 2010-06-08 10:10 · Score: 2

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.
Extradition treaty? by rainmouse · 2010-06-08 13:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
But the UK is not within US jurisdiction by DABANSHEE · 2010-06-08 18:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.
1. Re:But the UK is not within US jurisdiction by fredrik70 · 2010-06-08 21:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  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
  
  --
  if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
2. Re:But the UK is not within US jurisdiction by tehcyder · 2010-06-09 01:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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?
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it