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.
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."
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
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."
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
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
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.
[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?
1. I was being lazy in my original comments and in review I don't find this case a good example to take a stand on. The ground is just too squishy.
Fair enough. If I had applied my perspective to the case and found a lot of merit to what he's claiming, I'd point that out as well.
The Gary McKinnon case serves several ends; it is a public display of what happens when one goes against the state. It is a means of justifying the further fortification of the internet. And it is a means to add another coat of smear to the idea of a UFO presence.
From my experience, I'd say the Feds are after two things with McKinnon. They want to make an example of him. And they're following what they know. The US Government generally hasn't been very good at groking infosec. But the Government exists on a foundation of Law. They really get that and are really eager to use that tool. When all you understand is the hammer, you use that on everything - nail or screw included.
I've been in infosec meetings where the technical details of a threat and mitigation are glossed over. Meanwhile, the room lights up when the FBI agent talks about a case they're preparing to prosecute and equipment they've compounded as evidence. I'm rather disgusted with all that since, as I noted earlier, I find that as a sign of failure not a sign of progress. But that's been the traditional environment.
I suppose it's possible that this also serves to smear the UFO culture in general. McKinnon certainly does nobody in that camp any favors and, IMHO, serious UFO researchers should be outspoken in distancing themselves from him.
I would direct you to Richard Dolan's efforts if you are interested in reading the state of the current understanding of the UFO issue.
Noted.
For your part, you have now implied several times that you work closely with NASA in some capacity and that you have some fairly high level access to security proceedings there. I'm not sure what to make of that. Are you not a bit worried to be discussing internal policy on Slashdot, especially in light of this story about computer security?
Keep in mind that NASA is not entirely a single entity. From the outside it looks like a big, monolithic agency. On the inside, it's more of a schizophrenic collection of Centers and Directorates with power and autonomy existing based on what budgets any given entity controls (although there's been more attempts at top-down control in recent years).
I'm fairly comfortable with what I've commented on. I don't comment on specific policy. I don't provide technical details. I don't discuss any depth of NASA system security posture. And I wasn't involved with McKinnon's case so I'd make a really poor target for his defense to subpoena in a bid to weaken the case against their client.