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."

Comments

Asperger's

[bonch]

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.

Re:Asperger's

[KingSkippus]

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.

I don't think there's much argument over whether the guy should be punished. The argument is over how severely he should be punished, given that he 1) didn't cause any damage, 2) wasn't acting out of malice, and 3) was at least accomplish what he did in large part due to the incompetence of those who are, in theory, supposed to be competent in protecting themselves from such attacks.

What people are worried about is that he is going to have the book thrown at him not because of the merits of what his actions deserve, but because he caused a national embarrassment and those who prosecuted him want to use him as an example, a deterrence to others.

Plus, there's a legitimate question of jurisdiction. If I commit a crime at point A against someone at point B that is thousands of miles away, who gets to decide what the punishment is? The legal system at point A, where the crime was actually being committed, or the legal system at point B, where the target or victim of the crime is located? When dealing with the U.S., there's a general impression that it's always in the U.S. regardless of who did what where, and to be honest, there's a pretty good foundation for that impression. Cases like this don't help.

In this sense, I do not blame the British people for not wanting American "justice" slamming down on one of their own citizens. If I were British, I'd be fighting tooth and nail against this extradition, too. Not so much because I care for this particular individual, but because I wouldn't want to be extradited because I supposedly committed a crime in some other country from the comfort of the living room of my suburban castle thousands of miles away.

Re:Asperger's

[sortia]

I do not think anybody id disputing that? It's the inflated costs of the damage to obtain the extradition order that is the issue.

Re:Asperger's

[harryjohnston]

Of course he should stand trial. In the UK.

Re:Asperger's

[MoonBuggy]

To quote myself from when this discussion came up earlier:

For the sake of argument, let's say that we all agree that the crime occurred on US soil (and even that is by no means a unanimous opinion). The UK will only allow the extradition of they believe that he will receive a fair trial and (if found guilty) a reasonable punishment for the crimes he has been accused of.

This is a man with some psychological problems who appears to have made a very very stupid decision by breaking in to some poorly secured US government computers. There was little actual harm done. The consensus seems to be that in the UK he would receive a slap on the wrist, maybe some psychiatric treatment, perhaps some limitations on his future access to computers. At the time he faced a maximum of six months in a UK prison.

The US are calling him a terrorist, and lining him up for the distinct possibility of several decades, maybe even life, in a federal prison.

Do you believe he would get off lightly if extradited to the US, or do you think he would be made an example of? If the former, why? If the latter, do you think it is still fair to extradite him?

Re:Asperger's

[tlhIngan]

The dollar figure is BS - its not like he did damage to the hardware, programs, or data. But he did hack the system...and should be punished.

Not for the people who are involved. If your systems get "browsed through" would you not be combing through just to make sure the guy didn't decide to do something malicious instead? Or do you trust the hacker that just cracked your SSH password that all he did was "look around"?

The numerical amount may be high, but that could encompass a lot of costs in having to hire forensic investigators to check out each and every system (since breaking into one can also lead to breaking into others). So you've got the cost of downtime for everyone using the systems (because you want to freeze the system for investigation), the cost of the investigation itself, plus the cost of incidentals (e.g., changing passwords, etc).

No sane admin treats a system that was "just looked over" as untouched - they all treat it as someone intentionally put something on the machine, and until proven otherwise, the machine is untrustworthy.

Re:US wants to lock him up for point out our passw

[canajin56]

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.

It's not Aspergers, it's deeper than that.

[ratboy666]

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.

Might != Right

[Moraelin]

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?