Slashdot Mirror
Obama Won't Intervene Over British Hacker McKinnon
CWmike writes "President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that he can't intervene in the long-running case of a British hacker charged with breaking into US military computers. Gary McKinnon's case came up during discussions with British Prime Minister David Cameron in Washington. The UK Home Office is reviewing whether McKinnon's medical condition is grounds to block his extradition to the US, which was approved in 2006. McKinnon has yet to stand trial in the US, where he was indicted by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2002 for hacking into 97 military and NASA computers between February 2001 and March 2002. Obama said during a press conference with Cameron that by tradition US presidents do not get involved in extraditions or prosecutions. 'I trust that this will get resolved in a way that underscores the seriousness of the issue, but also underscores the fact that we work together and we can find an appropriate solution,' Obama said."
Citing Asperger's as a medical condition to prevent extradition is silly. Being socially deficient doesn't make you incapable of determining right and wrong, if in fact he really has the condition at all considering the ridiculous amount of self-diagnosis out there. Genuine Asperger's is a form of autism and deeply impacts your life. The guy left a threat on one of the computers promising future hacks--he knew what he was doing.
This is starting to sound like another "Free Mitnick" movement, where people support a guy who legitimately deserves legal punishment just to make themselves feel compassionate.
US wants to lock him up for pointing out our blank password mess.
This seem to be about making him a political prisoner!
They still can't find enough skilled applicants for their "Cyberwarrior" squad!
Asperger's, you never cease to amaze me. Somehow used as a sign of genius amongst hackers while at the same time being reason you should have charges dropped.
is the US Government trying to force the British Prime Minister to intervene in the Scottish courts over Meghrabi? US politicians seem to be doing their best to make Cameron feel that anti-British sentiment is alive and kicking. I quite realise that we actually are a declining little country of no great importance to the US except as a kicking boy, but they should be aware that Etonians are trained to hide their real feelings - and exact revenge at a time that suits them.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Correction: The US wants to try him in court for breaking US law.
He is being used as a political tool by UK politicians. The US is just doing things by the book.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
He didn't point out a blank password mess...he went and broke into our government computers, roamed around and exploited it. If he wanted to point out the blank password mess he would have gone and reported it. He broke in there "supposedly" looking for hidden NASA pictures. He knew he was going somewhere he wasn't supposed to be going.
It doesn't bloody matter whether he got into a system where the password was "password" or one where the password was "HD84^$#jdu7^$nhdge". It's a crime and if convicted he's a criminal.
Yeah it's not like the executive branch is about enforcement of the law or anything. Guess the Obama will continue with good ol' Gee Dub's interpretation of creating laws instead.
The US is just doing things by the book.
In general the law is interpreted so that the actual intent of the law is considered. In my (rather uninformed) opinion this is a classic case of bureaucrats enforcing the letter of the law to cover their own failures.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Yes, assuming the government is lying, you are totally correct. If you believe McKinnon, he deleted no files, he did nothing harmful at all, and only accessed computers with no passwords protecting them. The government maintains that he download classified documents, that the machines were protected, and that he also download the computers' password files to facilitate further break-ins. He himself admits to leaving a note saying that he will continue to disrupt their networks at the highest level if they do not admit 9/11 was an inside job. He also claims that the reason the government is making up all of these "facts" to prosecute him with is that they are afraid it will get out that the army and airforce have advanced free-energy reactors and anti-gravity fields that they reverse engineered from crashed UFOs. So, to silence him they want to have him shipped to Guantanimo Bay and executed. He says he found clear evidence of UFO encounters (256 MB photos from the ISS clearly showing UFOs), and NASA documents detailing the reverse engineering of free energy reactors, but he was so excited and stoned that he forgot to save them to his computer.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Your facts are wrong. The "general law" applies regardless of intent.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Interesting that this becomes all about McKinnon. What about the fact that he uncovered the fact that the military is running an alternate space program completely "off the books" and has hundreds of troops serving "off-planet"? Maybe one of the reasons NASA is being cut back is because the real activity is happening by the military, using their "black" budget.
People with Asperger's are not known for their ability to dissemble and come up with fanciful stories. In fact, one quality that comes up time and time again in descriptions of Asperger's sufferers is that they are unable to tell the "little white lies" that most of us tell every day in order to socialize. When meeting someone, someone with Asperger's is liable to say "You're fat!" or "You're ugly" when meeting someone, well, fat or ugly.
McKinnon found evidence of what might be a military base in outer space, but everyone wants to focus on this little legal ping-pong between the US and the UK.
Excuse me now, I have to get back to Above Top Secret.
You are welcome on my lawn.
. I do hope that you realise that you are libelling a number of Scottish doctors, as you have no evidence for that statement - many cancers do have unexpected periods of remission. Meghrabi was convicted under Scottish law - not by an International Court - and was also released under Scottish law - which, by the way, Cameron cannot legally interfere with, as it is separate from the English legal system.
You may not like Scottish law. I personally consider aspects of US Law, like your constant reference to an 18th century document to deal with 21st century issues, to be laughable. But if someone is tried, convicted and dealt with under sovereign Scottish law, US politicians have no business whatever interfering. The McKinnon case, similarly, is one of someone who should have been dealt with under English law - but the US interfered.
However, my basic point is that pissing off a new Prime Minister is likely to be counterproductive in the long term. Your failure to understand this seems to be shared by a large number of your countrymen.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The dude humiliated the US Government by highlighting their criminally slipshod security practices.
Obviously, the proper reward for such civic-minded behavior is to lock him in a cage with killers and rapists.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
And the proper place to do these interpretations and considerations is at his trial, which he needs to attend.
Sort of.
Intent matters for how severe the crime is, but intent doesn't generally turn a crime into a non-crime. To take this to an extreme, intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. The difference between them is intent, yes, but both are still crimes. You won't get out of a trial by saying you had no intent to cause harm. You might be found innocent of the harder crimes if the jury/judge believes you, but intending no harm doesn't make everything okay...what you *did* still matters.
In this case, whether he intended to cause harm is up for debate, but it's not for the court of public opinion to decide that...it's for a real court to decide that after a trial/evidence, etc. So, in short, he should stand trial.
You are confusing law (as interpreted by some attorney general) with morals ("right", "wrong"). A mistake.
My mother is in a very similar situation as you, she teaches children with aspergers and autism. I grew around children of all ages 5-19 that had these issues. Some of them were much worse than others but many of them definitely didn't understand right and wrong, at least not in the way you and I do.
I don't know much about the merit's of this case but if what I understand is that he wasn't malicious and actually tried to help the admins out by leaving them notes on how to fix things then this is certainly an issue of not understanding that what he did was wrong and that he thought he was helping.
I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
In criminal law, intention is one of the three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)
... in the UK
A libertarian shat on my carpet once. Claimed the free market would sort it out. -Ford Prefect(8777)
like real UFO is on a system with blank passwords did he hit a trap?
What, exactly, do you think the intent of the law is? The letter of the law seems fairly clear and the intent seems to be clear cut as well.
So, please post a detailed description of what you think the intent of the law is and reference that back to the letter of the law and explain how this in-duh-vidual did not break the intent of the law while breaking the letter of the law.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The intent of the law is to protect "national security". It puzzles me that anyone would consider this man to be a threat to anybody other than himself.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Interpretation is done at many levels in law enforcement. Actually going to trial is often a waste of time and this is recognized pretty universally.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
The actual intent of the law is one of the primary considerations for how it is enforced in anything other than a totalitarian state.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
To the White House for a beer.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
That's a very slippery slope you are on. If there is a legal differential, there is a societal differential. If the difference did not exist, the laws would be in harmony. Which would imply that extradition would not be needed.
Extreme examples abound -- countries that refuse to extradite criminals that would be executed, because execution is deemed morally wrong in one jurisdiction, and morally right in another.
Now, in this case, breaking into a computer is considered wrong in both jurisdictions. Why extradite? The only reason to is to apply a different punishment. It will either be more, or less, severe. But, understand, it will be different and not in accord with the original countries societal norms.
Since the defendant is a member of the original country, and, by extension a member of its society, he should be tried in accordance with its societal norms.
It interests me that this is exactly what he requested.
It is morally wrong for the leaders of his society to permit this extradition. In doing so, they show themselves to be either weak or dismissive of the democracy that elected them. The last time I checked, the UK was a democracy, and under its own rule.
The defendant did not commit the crimes in the US, and didn't physically flee US jurisdiction. If this had occurred, I would be supportive of his extradition.
Only the most extreme sentences can overturn the right to be held accountable to ones society. These are generally (in my society) those which will also refugee status to be granted. Simple theft, breaking and entering, or computer crime come nowhere near this bar.
Allowing this extradition means that the UK government is abdicating its sovereignty. The people of the UK should push to bring down this government, as it is no longer following the rule of UK law and society.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Someone, please explain to me why the President of the United States should intervene and prevent the prosecution of someone accused of committing a crime against the United State.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Well, no kidding. But at this point we have already passed the investigation, decision to prosecute, and federal grand jury stages. He has been indicted. The only thing left is trial.
He says he found clear evidence of UFO encounters (256 MB photos from the ISS clearly showing UFOs), and NASA documents detailing the reverse engineering of free energy reactors, but he was so excited and stoned that he forgot to save them to his computer.
I dunno why, but that sentence has got to be one of the most hilarious things I've ever read in my life.
Comment of the year
If you are not going to answer the question asked, why bother answering at all?
The intent of the law is to prohibit unauthorized computer access to computers. He admits he accessed the computers without authorization.
Now, how about answering the question I actually asked instead of just spouting off?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I just don't get this. Why should Obama intervene in this case?
Is it because McKinnon has some sort of autism?
Is it because his mother says he is a good boy?
Why?
The intent of the law is to prohibit unauthorized computer access to computers.
If accessing unsecured computers over the internet is a national security risk then you're doing it wrong.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
he
Except for the small issue where he is not American nor a resident of the U.S. and therefore can only be prosecuted if they can get the U.K. to agree to give him up. I really wish my ancestral home would grow a pair and tell the U.S. where to stuff it more often.
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
<least favorite religious claim>, but he can't actually prove it, so you must have faith, or else.
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
A) Please point out where in my statement I use the word "secured" or the word "unsecured".
B) You still have not answered my question, but rather given a snide remark.
If you don't want to be extradited to another country for breaking said country's laws, he is doing it wrong.
Now, answer the question I asked originally.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Too bad you can't say the same thing about our president.
Now, answer the question I asked originally.
What, exactly, do you think the intent of the law is?
The intent of the law is to prohibit unauthorized computer access to computers.
Did you get it this time?
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Do you get it now?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The intent of cybercrime law is to prohibit unauthorized computer access. This was unauthorized computer access.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Usually a crime has a required state of mind (Mens Rea) that looks like...
Purposely did X...
Knowingly did X...
Willingly did X...
Negligently did X...
If you do not meet the requisite state of mind then you cannot commit the crime in question... for example: First Degree murder must be Purposeful... Knowingly killing someone (2nd Degree) or Negligently killing someone (Manslaughter) are acts that do not meet the mental state required for First Degree murder. The requirement is only a minimum level... generally, if it is a crime to Negligently Park Illegally then it will also be a crime to Knowingly or Purposefully Park Illegally.
I'm not lawyer and neither are most of you... this should be decided in a US Court of Law and not in the UK Court of Public Opinion. To the Brits: we have an agreement, it may not be fair but you agreed to it, so please honour your agreement with the US and extradite this man so that he can be held responsible for his actions. This aren't unfounded charges and there is no good reason for this man not be held accountable.
You know, the whole "victims are to blame if they didn't make the crime impossible" meme is starting to rub me the wrong way.
No doubt, some people should have secured their computers better. But, no, that doesn't automatically give anyone right to do something just because they can.
There are millions of homes out there that just about anyone who isn't a quadriplegic _can_ break in. If nothing else, an axe takes care of most doors and a simple brick can defeat most windows. Talk about gaping security holes when securing one's home, eh? We should start excusing the criminals because the homeowners didn't make their house as secure as a bunker, eh? Well, no, it doesn't work that way.
There are millions of bycicles out there that one can steal quite easily for a quick joyride. Most of the older locks can be "bumped" by a 10 year old. But no, we don't excuse someone just because the bike wasn't impossible to steal.
Etc.
In no other domain do we think, "well, the victim failed to make the crime impossible, so the criminal has a good excuse there." Being able to do something isn't and never was an automatic right to do it.
So, really, exactly why should #3 even be a factor at all when it comes to computers? Just because to some nerds the harm _they_ can do should be legal, while harm done to them (e.g., bullying in school) should be a hanging offence? Do some people have delusions of being royalty, or what?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Ombama recognizes a Constitutional limit to his authority? This isn't April 1st, timothy.
[sarcasm] Of course, this has NOTHING to do with making the US military etc. look like a bunch of idiots when it comes to cyber security.
To make up for their embarrassment they wouldn't DREAM of taking it out on some dodgy hacker that made them look like n00bs. [sarcasm = off]
The US authorities are stamping their collective feet like self-entitled 3rd graders, trying desperately to deflect any criticism of their woeful security practices.
This whole affair may have something to do with a one-sided extradition treaty with the UK that meant that USA could just about say "we want that person to be extradited", with no prima facie case & the UK had little say in the matter.
However the same did not apply with the UK wanting US citizens extradited to the UK.Can we say "one law for the Americans & another for the rest of the world?
Naturally, this law was enacted under the stewardship of the well-known Bush poodle called Blair. Surprising, huh?
What I find funny is that people actually believe he found UFO evidence. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. But that hardly makes all fictions truthful. And this story sounds awfully fictitious. Especially when no such evidence was ever produced.
I said "UFO related material", wording which was very deliberate, as it can encompass everything including honeytraps.
The point here is that he is being publicly, gruelingly crucified, and it seems to me that this is having an effect upon the public. Just look at the moderation I received for saying nothing false. That was entirely expected also, because that is the programmed response events like this are supposed to have upon the public.
If you take an interest in UFO's and such, then a big part of your mind will scream at you: "Okay, but expect people to categorize you with Asperger's syndrome, government punishment, public ridicule and all things bad." There have been plenty of hackers, but they even pulled Obama's name on this circus.
I find it frustrating that people who pride themselves on clear and logical thinking are so easily manipulated by herd responses.
-FL
Allowing this extradition means that the UK government is abdicating its sovereignty. The people of the UK should push to bring down this government, as it is no longer following the rule of UK law and society.
McKinnon's extradition was agreed under the previous government's watch. They were booted out earlier this year. The new government is making noises about undoing some of the damage done by them to our civil liberties while in power. Hopefully it's not just talk.
US wants to lock him up for pointing out our blank password mess.
This seem[s] to be about making him a political prisoner!
The funny thing is that our own government employees can lose sensitive data concerning the American citizens, fail to properly secure networks and network nodes, ignore/ violate/ bypass communication protocols and receive little or no censure compared to McKinnon's "crime". And yet, there is so much secrecy in what this government is actually doing that it boggles the mind. The very constitution is being trampled on in the name of national security. I believe that the only security being protected is that of the rogue politicians (and they are all rogue, even the honest ones who fail to fight the system from within), who have abrogated their responsibilities to the American people, in the name of self-serving avarice.
Obey The Constitution!
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
All I want to know is whether McKinnon owns any BP stock.
Obama spewed wonderful-sounding idealistic phrases to get himself elected.
By now anyone with a brain knows the above was 100% bullshit.
I admit I fell for Obama's bullshit once.
I will NOT make that mistake twice. I have not been so disappointed in a
US president in many years. Bush didn't disappoint me because I had a good
idea to expect miserable things, and he delivered nicely on those expectations.
But Obama ? He is just a lying sack of shit.
And yet US senators want to haul the UK prime minster in front of a committee to bitch at him about the Scottish government releasing Lockerbie bomber Abdel Basset al-Megrahi. Of course, it doesn't matter that the Scottish government doesn't report to the UK government on devolved matters like justice, or that the US president himself uses the 'I have no jurisdiction' excuse when similar demands are made of him.
Before people comment on the McKinnon case, I really think they should be required to read the excellent series of posts on the subject by Jack of Kent - an English lawyer (of both kinds at one point) and award-winning "leading law blogger". It may be a bit legally technical in places, but is very informative and quickly cuts through a lot of the misinformation spewed out by the media on this case.
If the terms of the Bush-Blair extradition treaty were reciprocal, US posters would be up in arms, and rightly so, because it would allow US citizens to be deported to the UK for trial on the unsupported word of British law enforcement authorities.
Just out of curiosity, has there been any case - I mean even a single one - where Obama actually has done something?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
A lot of people in this discussion seem to not understand why Aspergers is relevant to the case.
People keep repeating this idea that Aspergers is no excuse for what he did, and that's true, no one has actually said it is a defence for what he did.
The reason Aspergers has entered the case is because of the effect of a US punishment given that condition in that US prisons are arguably much less capable of catering to people with this condition, such that someone with Aspergers runs a very high risk of committing suicide in US jails and the US jail system does not do enough to mitigate that. Effectively what is being said is that McKinnon may end up killing himself if given the brutal treatment of some US prisons and that frankly, what he did doesn't deserve what might effectively be a death penalty for him in this respect.
This is one of a few arguments- the other is that the US authorities want to give him a far greater punishment than the crime warrants (60 years, vs. the UK's 5 years).
In the UK we have not extradited terror preachers to their home countries because they risk what we deem unfair treatment and perhaps even the death penalty there so we have precedent of not extraditing people to places where they could be treated far outside the norms of our society.
Arguments about whether Aspergers is an excuse for doing this, or of jurisdiction are really irrelevant because that's not what is being argued by McKinnon's family and lawyers per-se. The focus is on the fairness of punishment coupled with that in the context of his condition, and whether the US will in fact give fair punishment in this context.
The fact is that McKinnon may have done wrong, but being put in a situation where he is pushed to suicide would be grossly unfair treatment for the crime and would be tantamount to a death sentence merely for logging into some unsecured US government computers.
I think few people believe he shouldn't be punished, although I believe there's fair argument that this uncertainty has dragged on so long that he's realistically been punished enough already, the issue is how hard he should be punished and whether the US can realistically give him a fair (non-politically motivated) trial and hence whether they can give him fair punishment. With the US' history regarding the likes of guantanamo over the last decade and the inflated costs being thrown around by the US government regarding this case, coupled with a track record of abysmal handling of computer crime related cases (Kevin Mitnick) the US has done itself no favour in demonstrating it's capable of ensuring fair justice for this case, hence the doubt from many British politicians and legal practitioners.
I hope this makes it a bit more clear where the debate is really centred- the quality of the US justice system regarding this sort of case.
For what it's worth, personally, I'd have absolutely no problem with the extradition if it were the case that we could be certain he'd get a fair trial and fair punishment in the US, but I do not believe that would happen, if anything largely because it's become so political with the likes of the Pentagon wanting to come down hard on him to save face for their incompetence, hence as it stands, unless the US can demonstrate otherwise, I am against his extradition. If the US could ensure fair justice, and was willing to also extradite equally to us (something else that's questionable right now with the extradition treaty) I think extradition at very least for the purposes of trial is not an unfair step.
It wasn't a crime when he did it. The law he's accused and being extradited for was NOT a crime when he did it. Doesn't the US have a thing about you can't be done for post-fact laws?
Silly me, I was thinking of a land of FREEDOM, not oppression.
The fact that McKinnon has Aspergers is virtually irrelevent.
At no point did McKinnon set foot on US soil, and therefore should not be subject to US law. The actual offences that McKinnon appears to have committed are trivial. The fact that McKinnon showed the door was wide open to more serious cracks and therefore a lot of money needed to be spent to fix the problem is irrelevent.
However, he did commit acts which are offences in the UK, and he should be prosecuted for those acts.
The solution for the UK is simple. Apart from raising the standard of proof (and thus cost) required to extradite someone back to its original 'prima-facie evidence' level, introduce an Equivalent Offences Act, which will state that if someone pleads guilty to an equivalent offence in the UK courts, he cannot be extradited for trial to another jurisdiction. I understand that McKinnon has effectively said he would be happy to do this, so the problem would be solved. Simples
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Here's the only criteria that matters for his medical condition: Can he still still sit in front of a computer and hack?
If so, send him over.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.