Slashdot Mirror
MacKinnon Extradition Blocked By UK Home Secretary
RockDoctor writes "BBC radio news (2012-10-16 GMT 13:00) is reporting that the Home Secretary has blocked the extradition of Gary MacKinnon to the U.S. for (alleged) computer hacking crimes. Paraphrasing: the Director of Public Prosecutions is going to have to decide if there is sufficient evidence for him to be tried in the UK for crimes committed in (or from) the UK.
"
(Also at The Independent.)
Even a stopped clock gets it right twice a day.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
He has an independently verified medical condition which makes him a high-risk for suicide. That doesn't make him innocent of his crimes; if you'd bother to read the article you'd see his case is now under consideration for prosecution in the UK.
This has stopped his extradition, not him being liable for his actions.
A good decision on its own merits, I think. His crimes were made out to be first degree murder by the US side, and he was going to go down for a LONG time for something that script kiddies do quite often.The guy obviously has something wrong with him, and he'd unlikely get a fair hearing in the States, where the favourite sport of the rich and powerful is to inflate claimed harm in court cases to crucify people they don't like (e.g. Kevin Mitnick causing a billion dollars damage and able to start nuclear war with a payphone).
That said, in context, it looks terrible. After what happened to Abu Hamza and friends, it says that if you're brown and Muslim, you're going to get thrown to the wolves. But if you're white, you're all right. I have zero sympathy for sub-human shit like Abu Hamza -- but the apparent double-standard is a very bad look.
No one is saying he's innocent. The case is now going off to the DPP for appraisel. The issue is about using an extradition treaty designed to process terrorists for sending over people for other offences, especially when the sentence is FAR worse in the US than it would be in the UK. I don't think anyone, himself included thinks he's innocent, it's the process that's wrong.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
So what exactly were his crimes? What damage did he cause? It's pretty much proven that he isn't a foreign agent and did not forward any information to other people.
Does the US citizen - Average Joe (or above average) know or care about this?
On a personal note, I'm shocked the government made a choice for a person over a corporation/lobby group/foreign power. First time In my life I think I've agreed with a home secretary?!?! must be getting old.
It's the right decision, finally, but for the worse reasons.
Suicide risk?
Well, that implies that you shouldn't extradite because aof suicide risk. What about murderers? What about holding "terrorist" suspects for 10 years without trial? Does that lead to a suicide risk? Should you simply not incarcerate people who are at risk of suicide?
He never left the UK and if what he did was illegal here, then he should be tried herre.
It is simply not right that one must know the laws of an artibray number of other countries even if you've never visited them. Secondly, the guy has a mental condition. He should be getting help (on the NHS no less) than this treatment.
Finally, the authorities should have been ashamed into silence that their systems were insecure. Instead, they are simply lying about the damage done. If sensitive systems were that insecure, then that amount of fixing/upgrading/replacing was already required whether or not they successfully detected an intrusion.
In other worde they are also lying about the damage.
Still, good for McKinnon and a weak blow for justice. The right decision for the wrong reasons is better than the wrong decisions.
Now all we need is to overturn this ludicrous, one-sided and outright unjust act before too many more lives are ruined.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Awwww.. has society been being nice to people again, and delivering appropriate justice rather than the fantasies of right-wing bullies.
That must really make assholes like you mad.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
Let's be honest about this. The intent was to make it possible for him to stay and be trialled in the UK. Right now, legislation and experience in US-UK extradition cases is stil young. Theresa May is still fumbling about, as we can see with the new protocols announced today (i.e. the 'forum test'). The suicide defence is, while a technicality, still perfectly fine because it means that we're not giving him up to the US which would hold up a far more damaging precedent than the one you seem to be worrying about. At the end of the day, he's British, and I don't care what technicality his lawyers engage, as long as his rights as a British citizen are protected.
And it's worth mentioning that, if extradited, Gary would indeed relapse into depression and commit suicide. What on earth would he have to live for?
If you've committed a crime in the UK then you should be tried in the UK. It should be as simple as that.
Blatant Advert: Android Apps!
I'm a UK citizen and I have little sympathy for him.
Now that is a pity.
HIs defence played the old suicide card with a side serving of poor-little-me aspergers sufferer. As if that somehow makes him innocent of his crimes.
Well, then you're a damn fool, and proudly ignorant of the case it would seem.
The entire argument is, and always has been that he should be tried in the UK.
Now I've demonstrated that your entire opinion is based on an incorrect understanding of the facts, will you recant, or keep on ranting as a righteous middle-aged keyboard warrior?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
When he was in opposition, he scored a lot of political points by defending Gary MacKinnon, accusing the Tony Blair/Gordon Brown Labour Party of being US lapdogs.
If he hadn't blocked the extradition, it would have been a PR nightmare for him and the Conservatives.
He was being extradited without evidence to be tried in a foreign country.
All of what you wrote is moot.
Interesting.....but the case is much more complex than that.
HIs defence played the old suicide card with a side serving of poor-little-me aspergers sufferer.
Still better than a Slashdotter playing the poor-little-me-is-gonna-be-downmodded card. Go back under your bridge.
There is something called an insanity defense you know.
Also I seriously doubt prison capacity is a valid argument for anything relating to justice.
So what exactly were his crimes? What damage did he cause? It's pretty much proven that he isn't a foreign agent and did not forward any information to other people.
We needed a boogy man to scare people with now that Kevin Mitnick isn't so scary. The modern witch hunt... some individuals must suffer for the amusement of the masses and control games of the elite. Our lapdogs in the UK are not cooperating. Bush probably would have already started bombing the UK in retaliation, but Obama will probably think of some other way to screw things up.
Its amusing to strip away the internet BS in his case and come up with analogies to breaking into a public library and photocopying stuff from the restricted collection. Yeah, he's a crook, but so small time as to scarcely be worth looking at, getting the USA witch trial treatment is a wee bit excessive.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Blair would have handed over the UK to the US lock, stock and barrel in exchange for a word from Bush iii (and some lucrative "consultancy" from a US bank). And the others...while there are libel laws in the UK I can't trust myself to write about Campbell or Mandelson.
Be carted off the the US without the US court having to show even prima facie evidence? There was a time and a place where foreign nationals could be extradited like that, but the time was prior to 1990 and the place was the satellite states of the Soviet Union.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Hey I just hacked you, and I may be crazy, but I was looking for ET, so don't extradite me...
I'd agree if the idea he should be extradited to face the possible penalties he could face in America were in any way sane.
When the Americans were putting forward such absurdly inflated figures for damage and recommending such absurd levels of punishment, then I don't really blame him for the excuse he used.
It seems the only way to get sanity in the case was for them to bring their own extreme scenario into the equation, the Aspergers excuse did after all only enter the discussion after some years of them trying to just be reasonable and rational about things.
So honestly, if you think it's silly that people can use this excuse to avoid extradition then fine, but if you think he also deserved to face extradition and upto 60 years in prison for what frankly, was little more than a bit of vandalism and arguably not even really that, then I think you need to get a bit of a grip on reality.
Honestly, what he did was arguably more harmless than even getting a speeding ticket, at least speeding tickets are there to try and deter anyone driving in such a way they cause physical harm to someone else. All Gary's actions did was cause a bit of embarassment and result in a bit of their IT staff's time be spent sorting out the security issues they should've sorted out as part of their day to day employment so he couldn't have logged in to their systems using a blank password anyway.
You can get out of prison for anything if your judge is in a good enough mood and you have a inventive lawer.
For example, getting off of the murder charge because you are a woman (http://www.abc.net.au/health/features/stories/2005/12/08/1836110.htm#d).
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Unauthorised access to computer material contrary to S1 of the Computer Misuse Act 1990. The maximum penalty for that in the UK is 2 years in prison, although as this is not a very serious example of the offence, it is likely he would get a much lower prison term, probably in the order of a couple of months at most.
It's bollocks. Sending anyone to a foreign country, with a comparatively harsh penal system to serve 60 years is going to massively increase the risk of them committing suicide. I've seen nothing in this case that makes me think that his 'condition' should have any baring on whether he was extradited or not (regardless of whether the extradition should have happened for other reasons or not).
I'm fed up of seeing people abuse provisions that are put in place to protect those with genuine medical/pschological needs and getting away with it.
i'm the only one get the sarcasm on this one?
Sorry someone shouldn't avopid trial on teh basis that they are will commit suicide. However if someone commits a crime they should be tried in teh jurisdiction they were in when they comitted a crime. lets seperate the fact that this involves computers from it and examine a less recent communication method. If i had in 1979 phoned an individual in the us and made credible death threats would i have been extradited to the us, or would i probably have been prosecuted here in the UK. he was not subject to us laws when he commited teh crime, he was however subject to uk laws where what he did was also an offence. Teh problem for me seems to be that the powers that be were concerned that under UK law his aspergers woudl have been ( and IANAL so the precise nomeclature i use may be incorrect) used as a mitigating factor or defence whereas US law pretty much allows people with the mental age of 12 year olds to be executed. therefore rather than prsoecute him here where it may have failed and then ttry to extradite him where the fact he had already been tried for teh crime may have allowed him to invoke double jeopardy, they decided to ship him off to the states. Can we extradite George w bush to the Uk for war crimes ( ignoring the fact we haven't even prosecuted our own politicians for this). basically he comitted teh crime here and should have been tried here and if the powers that be didn't like the result of that trial then change the laws or try to.
I think you accidentally ended up in an adult forum; BBC kids site is here; or try the daily mail.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
I figure most Brits will be for this, even if it's just for them sticking it to the US.
The entire argument is, and always has been that he should be tried in the UK.
From the article:
The home secretary told MPs there was no doubt Mr McKinnon was "seriously ill" and the extradition warrant against him should be withdrawn.
Mrs May said the sole issue she had to consider was his human rights.
She said it was now for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, to decide whether he should face trial in the UK.
Mrs May said: "After careful consideration of all of the relevant material I have concluded that Mr McKinnon's extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon's human rights. I have therefore withdrawn the extradition order against Mr McKinnon."
That sounds to me like the extradition has been completely rejected whether or not he is tried in the UK for his alleged activities.
Try looking at the motive, rather than the 'damage done' (which is virtually none anyway, apart from embarrassment maybe). Motive is what counts if we are going to punish or lock up people.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
On top of that, he demonstrated that it was simple, to the point of trivial to gain access to them and the information they contained. He was never going to be given a fair trial in the USA (as nobody who is extradited to the US ever gets - the cost of mounting a legal defence in the country makes that impossible) and was going to be part of a show trial to make an example of.
The biggest tragedy in this whole sorry episode is that it went on for so long and the next biggest tragedy is that so many other people were extradited to the USA and became victims of it's imprisonment (I nearly said "justice") system.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
As someone who has lived with a person suffering from a debilitating mental health issue I hope I'm not the first to say, "fuck you". Your opinion displays a lack of compassion for someone who was being disproportionately hounded by those who wanted to hide their own ineptitude by making him an example.
Mr. McKinnon was formally diagnosed. Your perception that he's some pretender looking for an escape is grossly judgemental. He and his representatives have repeatedly asked for a trial on UK soil.
I hope someone more objective and compassionate than you stands up for your rights if they're ever in peril.
I don't have karma to burn, I don't need a shield to be a decent human being.
I am not too familiar with Mc- and Mac- names but I thought it makes a difference in spelling in that the two can't be interchanged. I'm not trying to be the grammar police, I would just like clarification on this.
Agreed. He is probably guilty, but he should be tried in the UK, for the crimes he committed THERE, not in the U.S. (where he's never even been).
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
EasyTarget, plz don't feed the trolls. He's provably ignorant of the facts and background of the case and he doesn't really have any excuse for it in this day and age. Just let him rant quietly in a corner about this one
I'm not sure about the Daily Fail though, they seem to be supporting the decision. Who whudda thunk it? Oh, wait, they're waving the Jingoist Patriotism flag over this one, not the Balance of Justice flag. Shame, so close...
And he will be tried for that of course. Just not extradited.
Whoah, the British finally found some amount of courage ? Who knew, who knew. Maybe there's hope after all.
Honestly if the US authorities had wanted him for some computer security violations, he'd probably have been sent over, tried and even if found guilty would be back in England having served his sentence by now, with little to no public fuss.
The US authorities' insistence on throwing the book at anyone who makes them look stupid caused them more problems than it was worth, and the people defending him had been so zealous in their defence that they'd managed to convince themselves that he hadn't done anything wrong.
Exactly, a hacker should be tried in the country WHERE THEY ACTUALLY DID THE HACKING. That's pretty basic. I certainly wouldn't expect the FBI to put a U.S. hacker on a plane to the UK for hacking some server there. The crime was committed at a terminal in the UK, and that is where it should be tried.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I've always thought that someone should be prosecuted in England for alleged crimes allegedly committed in England. The US may be the alleged victim in this case but I don't see that it has any other role.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Dear Viol8,
Fuck you, you ignorant arsehole.
Sincerely.
hack & slash
P.S. I also have karma to burn.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
No one is saying he's innocent.
Indeed - he is guilty of embarrassing the pentagon which might be a truly terrible crime in the US but is somewhat less so in the UK.
I very much doubt the damages were 800 000.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
His defence wasn't "I have aspergers syndrome", it was "sorry, I cracked your system, looked around, did no damage, and then told you about it... I didn't realise it was a big deal because of aspergers."
Frankly, his crime is akin to someone picking your locker door, and then going "look, you shouldn't store your wallet in here when you're swimming, it's not very secure". Sure, it's not a good thing to do, and sure it should get a slap on the wrist... But to turn this into the life imprisonment crime the US are making it out to be, and to extradite over it, is retarded.
are they still harassing this guy?
If they had decided that it was because of the possible disproportionate sentence, or that the years of indecision had punished him enough then this would be fine. But a decision where "the sole issue she had to consider was his human rights", and the decision that "Mr McKinnon would be likely to take his own life if he was sent to face trial in the US" are bad news
I am just glad that this decision was made after we got rid of Abu Hamsa. In the UK we have a lot of Muslims who want to destroy our society and impose Sharia law. They will gladly kill themselves to do so. What's the betting that the next load of Muzzie terrorists that are due for extradition say that they will commit suicide if they do? If they attempted a suicide bombing or something it would be very hard to argue that they would not really do it. This president could be a real problem.
Oh the irony...
Well, if you listen to the Justice Department, it's the biggest hack of all time*, ever ever ever, cross their hearts and hope to die. I'm glad we seem to be basing this on the motive of a man, taking into account his affliction with Asperger's.
*This seems to imply that the Justice Department are denying anything bigger than this ever having happened to them. Yeah, right!
is not that Gary McKinnon is not going to be extradited, but that judges will have some discretion to decide whether an accused person should be tried in the UK instead of extraditing that person abroad.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Even if he has exaggerated his health reasons for blocking extradition, don't you think the U.S. authorities have exaggerated the damage he did? They definitely have prior form, just look at how they stitched up Kevin Mitnick. Bear in mind he was a U.S. citizen with constitutional rights. Imagine what they'd do to a foreigner.
60 years is way over the top and a sentence that U.S. judges would have been likely to hand down given his efforts to "evade justice" by delaying extradition for so long. It's about time the U.K. started protecting it's own citizens from over-zealous foreign interference. U.S. citizens would demand the same of their government.
He committed a crime in the U.K., it's always where he should have been tried. He would have served his time and been a free man long ago.
Mrs May said the sole issue she had to consider was his human rights.
Have you been actually following the topic for the last 10 years?
I have.
Repeatedly the argument has been that if he is to face trial it should be in the UK.
Remember, though that legal cases are not argued by finding one good solid point like a debate, they are argued by covering everything to see what sticks. The fact that the current home secretary decided to latch on to one partiaspect of it does not detract to what has been the point for the last 10 years.
The McKinnon family has made no attempt to prevent him from standing trial.
They have only attempted to block his extradition.
Randomly quoting bits from a politician who has been in a position of power for only a tiny fraction of the case is completely irrelevent.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"Let the punishment fit the crime". This isn't about whether Gary McKinnon is innocent or guilty. I don't think anyone doubts the fact he committed a crime. The simple fact is that he (allegedly) hacked some computer systems causing some minor outages and copied some data. The total cost of fixing the problem was apparently $700,000. I don't know about you, but I personally think that a couple of years of prison is enough for that. There were no victims and $700,000 is a drop in the pond relatively speaking. The bankers have wiped billions off the global economy and I haven't heard of one of them facing a single day of jail. You could even argue that he did the US military a favour. The hack he used was trivial; if an enemy country (e.g. Iran) had done the same thing the consequences might not have been so benign. The security was a joke and it needed to be fixed. We need to stand up for our citizens and their rights. We shouldn't bend over and let foreign countries stick it to us just because we have to be whiter than white and abide by the rules to the letter. We have been doing a lot of that recently. If Gary McKinnon were extradited to the US he would face jail time more than an order of magnitude higher than our justice system had decided is reasonable. Furthermore, I frankly doubt he would get a fair trial. The US military would be pushing for revenge. The US has a long standing history of xenophobia and isolationism (usually masked as patriotism). It would be a question of burning the dirty foreigner at the stake. We shouldn't even have an extradition treaty with a country that has admitted they torture people.
For example, getting off of the murder charge because you are a woman
No, getting off on a murder change because you have a massive hormonal imbalance which causes you to become uncontrollaby violent.
1981: Twenty-nine-year-old barmaid Sandie Craddock got off a murder charge after stabbing another worker to death when she pleaded diminished responsibility because of PMS. The judge accepted the argument that PMS was a mitigating factor in the incident because it turned Craddock "into a raging animal each month". A review of Craddock's diaries showed that each of her past 30 convictions and multiple suicide attempts occurred around the same time of her menstrual cycle. Craddock was found guilty of manslaughter, placed on probation and ordered to take progesterone treatment.
Not saying the judge was right or wrong, but out of the three of us (you, me, and him) I'd say he's the one who's more carefully considered all the evidence.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
You made a good point, little need for AC.
He hacked into computer systems and caused no actual damage. The Pentagon asked hollywood accountants to come up with the quoted clean-up cost.
Exactly, a hacker should be tried in the country WHERE THEY ACTUALLY DID THE HACKING.
To play both Devil's Advocate and Captain Pedantic for a moment, you're talking about "where the accused was physically located," which is not the same as "where the crime is said to have occured" - especially once you get lawyers involved.
If I shoot someone from across a border, where was the crime committed?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Has a deal been done?
In public rhetoric they claims McKinnon is a cyber-terrorist, who committed the biggest military hack of all time and did a million worth of damage, and left the US at risk.
In terms of evidence they offered, they offered nothing. Zip.
Nobody should be extradited without evidence. He's not a cyber-terrorist, the USA isn't facing cyber-pearl-harbor, they talked up his case a lot but they offered no evidence of any of it. Under that circumstance he should be extradited.
However, the UK-US extradition law doesn't require evidence of a crime, the US can say "We want Bob Smith, he's 6'2", blue eyes, last lived at 32b The High Street, Slough", "we want him for murder", "murder is a crime in the US serious enough to use the expedited extradition". But they don't have to offer any evidence that "Bob Smith" murdered anyone. It's not part of the extradition on the UK to US leg, the other way around, US to UK, the Americans insist on evidence showing that Bob Smith actually did murder someone.
Because the evidence isn't part of the extradition, Bob can't challenge it. Being innocent is no defense against extradition under this treaty. Innocent or guilty the treaty makes no distinction. Which is why no-one should be extradited under this.
The Parliament investigation explains in details the problems with it:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201012/jtselect/jtrights/156/15608.htm
189. Mr David Bermingham, argued that:
"if you are a United States citizen who is wanted for extradition by the United Kingdom, you have an absolute right to a hearing in a United States court where you can challenge the evidence that has been put in front of the court and present evidence of your own. If, by contrast, you are a United Kingdom citizen or somebody ordinarily resident here who is wanted by the United States, you have no such right."[195]
190. In Mr Bermingham's opinion, the UK extradited people to the US "without so much as a scrap of evidence being put in front of a UK court" which was "a grave disservice to our citizens and other people who may be the subject of extradition."[196]
195. Article 5(3) creates a two-fold problem because it allows the extradition of individuals on the basis of evidence which the CPS has deemed insufficient to prosecute in this country and the extradition of individuals where the CPS has decided there is no public interest in prosecuting.
If I shoot someone from across a border, where was the crime committed?
Where the person pulled the trigger and actually committed the crime, unless you think getting shot is a crime too.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
He embarassed the US military, he should be given a medal for that.
I'm fed up of seeing people abuse provisions that are put in place to protect those with genuine medical/pschological needs and getting away with it.
I've never met the man, have you? Odd how you can diagnose a person as "sane" with no medical background and never having met him. Personally, I tend to believe the medical professionals who actually studied medicine and who actally had face to face contact, rather than from some stupid newspaper reporter.
TLDR: Why do you doubt the diagnosis of a health professional?
Free Martian Whores!
No one is saying he's innocent.
He's not convicted yet.
His defence was that there was no case to answer for.
The case had been plumped up so that it fell within the parameters of the extradiction orders.
The crime he was accused of was changed to one that DID NOT EXIST at the time of the crime (no post facto law) to pass that parameter for the extradition orders.
The act had been looked at by the UK court prosecutors and they did not see a case worth prosecuting.
The extradition treaty does not require the USA to hand over ANY evidence for their claims, claiming it is all they need do. Verification is unnecessary. And this is a breech of his human rights.
Hear, hear!
Oh, for a mod point right now.
What's the problem? Put him in isolation room with constant suicide watch for duration of sentence. Just like did for Bradley Manning. I believe this would actually decrease suicide risk to well below average.
To use your analogy this is like trying to have said mugger extradited to America to stand in front of Hangin' Judge Parker because the victim was an American tourist rather than have the little scrote be sentenced in a UK court.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Ah , standard defeated liberal retort #5. Imply other person is stupid and/or childish and has no idea of the facts.
Do try to be a bit more original instead of cut and pasting from the usual script.
Seriously, your straw man won't stand up for a microsecond. If Muslim terrorists in the UK managed to lob a missile to the US, they could be tried in this country and the question of extradition to a country with a backward judicial system would not arise. Even with Abu Hamza, the real issue is whether the US has got a case or not. The suspicion is that, just like the invasion of Iraq, they are just thrashing around trying to find someone they can punish for something - a popular mode of expression in the more backward parts of the US, from where we get "Lynching".
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I'm a UK citizen
By birth? Or did you move here? Not a great advert for our education system if you were raised in it.
HIs defence played the old suicide card
As pointed out by many that argument was used against extradition. I can't see it having much sway as a defense in the criminal case that will follow.
I'm a UK citizen and I have little sympathy for him. HIs defence played the old suicide card with a side serving of poor-little-me aspergers sufferer. As if that somehow makes him innocent of his crimes. If thats alls that needed to get someone off going to prison then most prisons would be empty.
This sends a very bad message. And yes, I know I'll get modded down for this by all the self righteous teen keyboard warriors but I have karma to burn to knock yourselves out.
Why is a Brit extradited to the US anyway, for a possible crime committed in the UK? If I did something stupid in Norway, I'd expected to be tried here with Norwegian laws, judges and sentences. I'm pretty sure the US does not extradite it's own citizens for crimes done in the US...
unless you think getting shot is a crime too.
I don't think the crime as committed by the criminal and the crime as suffered by the victim are quite so inseparable. What if the criminal stabs their victim with a long stick over the border? Or sends a robot over to do the dirty work? Or sets a bomb on a timer while they're in country A, goes back to country B and chooses not to remotely disarm it once they're there? Ridiculous examples, of course, but I do think it's too simplistic to declare that wherever someone happens to physically be is where the crime was committed ("when" also being subject to the whims of lawyers and prosecutors in some cases).
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I think that's how everyone sees it. Except for the Americans who want to impose their law everywhere.
"McKinnon claimed that UFOs were the reason for his hack. Convinced that the government was hiding alien antigravity devices and advanced energy technologies, he planned to find and release the information for the benefit of humanity. He said his intrusion was detected just as he was downloading a photo from NASA's Johnson Space Center of what he believed to be a UFO." http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/the-autistic-hacker/0
So now his sentence is solitary confinement for accessing a computer which had no security on it?
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
It's certainly a little lopsided. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17553860/
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Theresa May only had a certain frame of reference for blocking the extradition - that he should be tried in the UK is not one, and indeed two people have been extradited to the US in the last two weeks for websites created and run in the UK.
One way to block the extradition was on the grounds of illness, again, in the last two weeks one person has been extradited to the US even though he had medical certificates saying that he was a suicide risk.
Of course, the difference is that they were nutty muslim terrorists with hooks and eye patches,and not white middle class aspareger syndromes sufferers.
try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die
A lot of people seem to think this is a good result because they don't think hacking should be outlawed, or they hate the US or think the US has to harsh a penal system.
The real fact however is that because a person claimed that Asperger would cause him to commit suicide, escaped facing trial a healthy person would have had to face for his actions.
I don't like the idea of 'get out of jail free' cards. I remember a case were a woman killed her husband and claimed temporary insanity because of her period. Fine, so her cycle makes her insane, so let her out of jail for murder. Just lock her up every month to prevent any more murders.
Oh wait, your disability/insanity/illness/bad drug use effect ONLY applies the once, not for the rest of your life? I see.
In Hollland we got something called TBS (Ter Beschikking Stelling/To be made available) it is sentence given to crazies on top of or instead of a prison sentence and it is basically forced mental care. And where prison sensentences have a fixed time (we do got real life sentences in Holland) TBS can last until a doctor says your fit to be returned into society. It is NOT a nicer option then jail no matter what people think.
If you suffer the disability of being blind in one eye, you can't drive a car. Plain and simple. Disability you can't help nonetheless has a permanent consequence to protect yourself and others.
If you are mentally unfit to make financial deals, you are protected by being able to have contracts undone BUT society is also protected from you by the consequence of you being placed under supervision of a caretaker so you can no longer enter into contracts on your own.
Action => consequence.
But this guy did something and now wants not to suffer the consequence. He is saying "people with asperges shouldn't be sent to America". Not people in general, just not him, because he is special. Not so special that his Aspergers should have any consequence for him, like being barred from using a internet connection, not his disability should only give him a get out of jail free card and nothing more.
And that don't sound right.
If nothing else, it is a slap in the face of everyone with far more serious issues who don't go breaking the laws. I just don't like twats getting away with things because they throw a hissy fit and all the cry babies rush over to sooth him.
Simple sentence, community service and supervised internet access until he can prove he won't be acting like an ass again. No doubt this will be protested because people with Aspergers shouldn't be forced to have supervised internet access to ensure they behave. It should just be used to stop them from having to face the consequences of their actions.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I'm fed up of seeing people abuse provisions that are put in place to protect those with genuine medical/pschological needs
Genuine according to who? I've admittedly not been following this too closely, but I was under the impression that actual, certified doctors have said that he has a genuine medical/psychological condition. Do you have a problem with the diagnosis itself? The particular doctors who made the diagnosis? The regulatory body they report to? Or do I just have the wrong understanding?
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Yes, but under the new World Order, "If you've committed a crime in the UK then you should be tried in the UK, unless the Americans want to be involved in which case it happens however they would like"
was found guilty of like 4 grand theft in the end. less then the value of most used cars
I very much doubt the damages were 800 000.
It may however have cost them approaching that to properly secure their systems in the wake of the incident.
Also I never thought I'd say the words 'Theresa May made a good decision for a change', I'm sure it won't happen again.
In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
Yes, but massive hormonal imbalances are par for the course for being a woman.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
"U.S. citizen with constitutional rights"
which bit of the constitution says that the rights are for US citizens only? they're inalienable rights, they apply to me (a UK citizen) as much as they do to a US Citizen, when I'm in the US.
I've lived my life with a condition that very few have even heard of and those that do tend to know it vaguely offensive monikers ("mild retardation", "clumsy child syndrome") that made my childhood pretty difficult and schools refused to even get me tested until late into my school life. But regardless, I hate people who use "my brother died that way..." points to win arguments. It's unfair and pointlessly turns them emotional.
For such a debilitating condition, he'd managed to live for 35 or so years with it with no diagnosis and had a stable job as a systems administrator. He only got the diagnosis after it became apparent it would be helpful for his appeal. Not only that, the people who diagnosed him were high profile and very media savvy doctors who would gain a lot promoting Aspergers, especially if they appeared in all the media as "the leading expert".
I think he should be tried on British soil but it's because he committed the crime on British soil, not because of his diagnosis.
What everyone seems to be missing is that the answer to this lies in the terms of the extradition treaty between the two countries.
Clearly that treaty allows for the extradition of people who commit crimes against the US to the US for trial and possible punishment.
The Home Secretary is taking a rather extraordinary action by overriding a court decision in this case. Of course it won't amount to much given the relationship between the two countries involved, except perhaps a bit of tit for tat.
As far as the concerns about Asperger's and suicide, clearly the treatment of the suspect could be a subject of negotiation if this is a concern. I have a son who has Asperger's, and from reading the literature the general understanding is that the tendency for suicide generally is elevated do to co-morbidity with other factors - which haven't been talked about in this case. It would be interesting indeed to know if this is a factor, or that Asperger's alone is being waved around when it may not actually be a real concern, but rather being used as an excuse for political gain.
A whistle-blower is holed up because he will be extradited to the US, where they will lock him up, torture him and then throw away the key.
nobody cares what the constitution says nowadays.
Either way, do you remember that stink related to provisions of NDAA which allow the govt to detain Americans indefitely? Or the stink related to the assassinations of American citizen Al-Awlaqi and his 16yr old son, also American citizen, ordered by Obama administration?
Nobody bats an eye in case of suspected terrorists rotting in Guantanamo and brown peons killed daily by the drones, so apparently 'Muricans do see the difference - there are them, the chosen nation, and then there's the rest of plebes.
Of course, the difference is that they were nutty muslim terrorists with hooks and eye patches,and not white middle class aspareger syndromes sufferers.
Quite right. The extradition treaty was for dealing with terrorists. McKinnon is not a terrorist.
Sorry, the constitution does NOT apply to foreigners in the US.
I am an immigrant (legal) and the documents specifically state that I am not allowed to present myself as a US Citizen since many constitution protections do not apply to me:
Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure - DHS and other police forces are allowed to seize and search me at any time
Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel - DHS trials are closed to the public, no jury, can last well beyond the time your alien status expires (at which point you have to leave and the case is closed) and decisions made by a DHS judge on my status as an alien resident cannot be challenged by state or federal judges.
Besides that I do not have the right to vote or seek political office on a federal level.
The same fate is slowly coming for US citizens as well and it has already started in airports and anywhere within 100 miles of an international border or airport.
So now his sentence is solitary confinement for accessing a computer which had no security on it?
You make it sound like the fact that the computer had no security on it makes it OK to access it. Fundamentally, accessing the computer was wrong - maybe an embarrassment for the computer owner, but unauthorised access is unauthorised access, You could extend that logic to say it's OK to mug little old ladies because they're defence-less and open to attack. A crime is a crime is a crime, regardless of how hard to have to work to perpetrate it.
He deserves a medal and a hearty thanks from U.S. taxpayers, for publicly exposing the criminal stupidity and incompetence of the Pentagon.
Aspergers can go a very long time without diagnosis, and I don't think that this was a "diagnosis of convenience". The three doctors are all highly rated professionals and it's unlikely they'd all stake their professional reputations and risk being struck off the medical register or prosecuted for giving false evidence just for one guy, however David-vs-Goliath this case is.
However, it is quite depressing that it's become such a lynch-pin in this case when the real issue is how the hell we got into this position where our extradition treaty with America is so unbalanced, and we're so willing to send one of our own nationals to be made an example of with such awful trumped-up charges.
I think that's how everyone sees it. Except for the Americans who want to impose their law everywhere.
And the British politicians who agreed to an extremely one-sided extradition treaty with the US (and today, in parliament, a number of MPs defended the treaty as "fair").
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Oh, we're quite sure he did it. That we know, he told us. But the charges he would be looking at in the States are up to 70 years, and we're not legally allowed to extradite anyone to a country where they may face "cruel or unusual punishment". 70 years for a minor, damage-less hack of a totally insecure system? Hmm, let me think...
The US can go pound sand.
but unauthorised access is unauthorised access
Is it unauthorized access if the computer owner authorized access to everyone and their dog, even if they didn't realize they did? Why?
You could extend that logic to say it's OK to mug little old ladies
A person being defenseless is not the same thing as that person welcoming any and all actions against them. And no, the little old lady choosing to calmly follow the mugger's instructions because she realizes what would happen if she tried anything does not count as welcoming any and all actions against her.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Isn't "cruel and unusual" or rather "inhumane and degrading" to be taken on absolute terms though, rather than relative to the crime?
I have made little progress just discussing ideas with my countrymen and if I mention the idea is from Europe then I'm doomed from the start. I don't know why we have to dismiss everything more civil nations do; or merely dismiss something "foreign" and these are just ideas, facts, or logic which can have no ownership or nationality (despite the "IP" idiocy.)
We only have crime here and we have a broken legal system based upon terrorizing defendants to the benefit the legal profession. Crazy acts do not exist here. Some "crimes" are just insane and we really should reclassify many of our crimes as acts of insanity; possibly creating a separate system to manage them. In the USA we removed most our "nuthouses" and put "evil criminals" in jail with everybody else. It is not civil to lock up an antisocial person next to somebody who ate his neighbor; or in this case, next to an unsocial Asperger's guy who is harmless to society. His punishment here is not likely to be fair or cost effective or rehabilitating.
His actions embarrassed the USA so like Wikileaks he must be made an example of; his actions and intent was not harmful but in either case he was beneficial in the grand scheme. He not only shows the security holes but if he found something worth leaking he'd be doing society a service. His intent was to enter illegally and gather info; that is a crime but it is not the cold war spying the extreme laws were created for. Not that we can expect reason to enter our legal system now... they'll terrorize him with idiotic claims hoping he'll settle with something about on par and then give him the max.
In the USA they do not have equal punishment (just look up the racial stats) and 1st timers get it worst of all because they must be "made an example." This guy is positioned to be robbed of proper justice besides the fact the US system is just broken. This guys "crime" is the internet version of trespassing or "breaking and entering" although he didn't break anything, he just entered. A 6 month max crime here if you are a nun setting foot onto a military base (it happens more than you'd think.) He didn't do much actual harm nor is there evidence he had motive to do any such things.
Asperger's in the USA is only something parents pay to get their kids so they can get alternative treatment for their brat in school; any kid with specialize attention will do better in school. Everywhere else they dismiss that stuff as psycho-babble and you don't get jack unless there is a DRUG then it gets as much attention as it is profitable to do so... this means we have dangerous people running free so they can buy expensive drugs they can forget to take.
The Aspergers defense is just a typical slimy lawyer trick to exploit ignorance. If it was any defense it would be for his motives; although, forcing him to be social all the time would be extremely uncomfortable - like putting a normal person into a jail cell with limited social contact.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Theresa May is to be congratulated for her decision to not extradite Gary McKinnon to the USA. The real reason that the USA wanted to put him on trial is because he embarrassed them.
Mr McKinnon did not cause any damage to the Pentagon systems or take really sensitive information. He got into the Pentagon's computers by guessing passwords, many that worked were manufacturers' default passwords that had not been changed. What he did was the equivalent of walking down a street gently twisting front knobs to find a door that was unlocked.
Setting good passwords is the first thing that anyone with any clue about security will do. That the passwords were so easy to guess is astounding and makes me wonder about the quality of Pentagon staff. The claim that he cost them one million dollars is specious since they should have done this work in the first place.
The USA should not be castigating him but thanking him for showing them their poor defenses before someone really malicious broke in.
What Mr McKinnon did was wrong, that is without doubt. But the penalty was too high; the USA would not have played fair.
I make no comment on Mr McKinnon's condition of aspergers or the report that he would commit suicide; I do not consider those really relevant to the injustice that the USA would have done to him - as revenge for showing that their systems staff at the Pentagon are incompetent idiots.
Ask foreigners who are being detained without trial how the constitution applies.
he has a suitably low melanin content in his skin. An essential, though not sufficient, quality to ensure 'fair' treatment.
Maybe we can organize giving him one while he serves his prison term. I mean there have been stranger things to happen like Nobel Peace Prize winners with an active Kill List.
I'm also a legal immigrant in US, and you're wrong.
Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms
NRA and SAF have sued the State of Washington for refusing to issue firearm licenses to aliens in 2008. The state has backed down, which is why I have an AFL and am able to own firearms. Other states still have similar restrictions on the books, and they're also being sued over it (e.g. Missouri, New Mexico). It's one of those cases where the right is there, but we need to fight to get it fully respected, and people are working on it.
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure - DHS and other police forces are allowed to seize and search me at any time
Not really. They can demand your immigration papers, and if you cannot provide sufficient evidence of your status, they can hold you until they ascertain that, but they can't just randomly search you or your house.
Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel - DHS trials are closed to the public, no jury, can last well beyond the time your alien status expires (at which point you have to leave and the case is closed) and decisions made by a DHS judge on my status as an alien resident cannot be challenged by state or federal judges.
The 6th begins with "In all criminal prosecutions ...". DHS trials are not criminal prosecutions.
Besides that I do not have the right to vote or seek political office on a federal level.
That is one of those few bits in the Constitution where it explicitly reserves the right to citizens (and not to the "people"). This is as it should be - the whole point of citizenship is that it gets you the ability to take part in running the country.
You cannot really "authorize" something without knowing it. To authorize is to consent to permission and it requires an active foreknowledge.
But, this can get cloudy depending on the circumstances. You forget to lock your door, does that invite anyone walking up to it to enter your home? You own a shop and close down but forget to lock the doors, does that make someone a criminal who comes in looking for a pack of gum and some beer 20 minutes after close. If someone doesn't use normally accessible paths to normally accessible services, you cannot really argue authorized because you cut across something or knew to look in the bedrooms for the valuable stuff.
Accessible does not automatically mean welcoming any and all actions against them. When I open the curtains to my windows in the back yard, anyone in the back yard could see in them. However, that is not an invite for you to trespass and look into them at night when no one is watching.
It says "We the People", not "We the Citizens."
Just because recent administrations have gone tromping all over the Constitution of the US in their zealous pursuit of supposed terrorists since 9/11 does not mean such legislation is legal under the auspices of the Constitution.
The US is not the country it once was. It abandoned it's Constitution following 9/11. An absolute master stroke of manipulating the feat of the population into an abdication of their rights.
Fools.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Fear not Feat! *LOL*
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It didn't advance the discussion in any meaningful way, why pollute the +2 space.
Sorry, the constitution does NOT apply to foreigners in the US.
The Constitution says "citizen" or "the people" when it means citizen and says "person" when it means anyone/everyone else.
Consider re-reading the constitution + amendments with all those words highlighted.
The 2nd Amendment issue has been litigated and the conclusion was "citizens only".
The 4th Amendment issue has never been directly litigated by SCOTUS, but they have tangentially stated that there is no reason it wouldn't apply.
The 6th Amendment issue has been litigated and the conclusion was "applies to everyone" (in the country)
--INS/DHS/ICE deportation proceedings are not covered because they are civil cases, not criminal trials.
And in the interests of being complete, the relevant portion(s) of the 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 13th, and 14th Amendments also apply to "persons", regardless of their immigration status.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
And they will more than likely hit Eire instead. There is a reason why the US prefers the RAF to do all low level precision bombing.
perhaps, At least the food they impose upon the rest of the world due to Imperialism will be more palatable than American cheese, beer and MAC D's
Perhaps New Zealand might grow a backbone with respect to extradition to the US now.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
You're right. Page Not Found is pretty lopsided - did the UK extradite it?
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
You forget to lock your door [...]
More like you don't realize that there are no doors, and there's a giant sign out front in a language you don't understand that is inviting everyone and their dog inside.
Accessible does not automatically mean welcoming any and all actions against them.
Um, I never said it did.
When I open the curtains to my windows in the back yard, anyone in the back yard could see in them. However, that is not an invite for you to trespass and look into them at night when no one is watching.
So anyone who has already entered your yard, a yard which I am guessing displays no invitations to authorize access to strangers, would be able to see inside your house. I'm not really sure how this is comparable. Maybe if your yard had some giant East Asian sculpture that you did not realize was a sign meaning "travelers, come stop here!", but I'm guessing it doesn't.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Randomly quoting bits from a politician who has been in a position of power for only a tiny fraction of the case is completely irrelevent.
I'll just note her opinion ceases to be irrelevant when she has and uses her power to block extradition. That might not end the saga, but it sure looks he's not going to be extradited ever to the US unless he travels to another country and gets caught and extradited there or someone kidnaps him.
No, I understand the language quite well, If we keep the analogy of a house, it is more like he looked in from the street, went around to the alley, slipped past the neighbors, jumped the fence, and walked in the back door. That is not in any way a giant sign inviting anyone in. It is a way that has absolutely no security but it is completely different then published links presented to the public.
It appears you did. However, even if you didn't, then I can assume you do agree that "Accessible does not automatically mean welcoming any and all actions against them". Or was that your way of disagreeing without addressing the issue?
That is because you are deliberately trying to be obtuse. Every house has a pathway, or a side walk leading to a door that is normally used to contact people inside the house. I can walk up this pathway at any time and knock on your door all I want. I cannot leave it and conceal myself somewhere off the beaten path in order to look into you house. Cops cannot even do that without a warrant. They have tried and the courts threw the evidence out.
Always wondered why some people are so eager to get this green card thing. Why would anyone voluntarily deport themselves to a police state.
Sorry, shouldn't have had the trailing slash
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17553860
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
He has an independently verified medical condition which makes him a high-risk for suicide. That doesn't make him innocent of his crimes; if you'd bother to read the article you'd see his case is now under consideration for prosecution in the UK.
This has stopped his extradition, not him being liable for his actions.
His "crime" was guessing the password on a US govt site.
The only "criminal" in this case is the negligent person who put in an easy to guess password (criminal negligence, in case you didnt get the pun.).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
You could extend that logic to say it's OK to mug little old ladies because they're defence-less and open to attack
I think you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who thinks that. However, if I leave my front door unlocked and somebody walks in, looks through my photos, rearranges some stuff and knocks over a vase, why should I expect them to pay to have my locks changed?
As far as I know the Kill List only applies to Active X controls
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/240797
If you know a way to set a Kill Bit on a person I'd be every interested.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Are you saying you wouldn't want them to be prosecuted for trespass?
Changing the subject a bit, where do you live?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Not at all, I'm quite happy to see that the CPS are looking into it again. The problem is that the US quoted insanely high figures to support their extradition request. As far as I can see, they've included the cost of actually securing their systems in the damages that McKinnon may have caused. That's why I used my "changing the lock" analogy.
After I submitted my post I realised (exactly as you pointed out) that I should have qualified it with "they'd be liable for trespass, and damage to the vase, but not for me changing my locks".
Irish, but I in the UK.
His "crime" was guessing the password on a US govt site.
There's no need for the scare quotes. What he did was illegal in both the US and the UK.
I agree that McKinnon should not be sent to the US but IMO May has set a precedent which she will regret. Look what she said
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/16/mckinnon_extradition_decision/print.html
In a statement to Parliament on Tuesday, Theresa May said that long-running extradition proceedings against the 46 year-old Asperger's Syndrome sufferer would be withdrawn on medical and human rights grounds. Psychiatrists warned that the Scot was likely to attempt suicide and was not strong enough to withstand the stress and trauma of a US trial and likely imprisonment.
May told Parliament there was "no doubt" McKinnon was seriously ill as a result of Aspergers and depression and at a "high risk of ending his life". She said that after taking careful advice from medical and legal experts she has decided withdraw extradition proceedings.
So if you can convince a doctor that you are a credible suicide risk if extradited, you will not be executed. Now this is problematic as the main target of the extradition act was Islamist terror suspects. Islamists are famously willing to kill themselves for the cause and it seems highly likely they will be able to pass the 'credible suicide risk if extradited' test that the McKinnon case seems to have set as a bar to extradition.
So is it right that McKinnon gets tried in the UK and most likely sentenced to time served? Absolutely, he is fundamentally harmless. Is it also right that the same thing happens to much more dangerous Islamists? No, not at all.
May has done the typical politician thing of solving a short term problem whilst creating a long term one which is probably more serious. It would actually better if she'd pardoned McKinnon or used some sort of discretionary power to block the extradition in a way that won't stop the extradition of people like Abu Qatada or Abu Hamza, Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan. The credible risk of suicide test most likely will and I believe she will discover it was a tactical mistake to institute it.
This is a point that David Rivkin has been trying to make, though the media are too busy crowing about the UK "standing up to the US" to listen to it.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3612398.htm
RACHAEL BROWN: US lawyer David Rivkin was a White House Counsel for presidents Reagan and Bush.
He says the Home Secretary's decision is laughable and could set a dangerous precedent.
DAVID RIVKIN: Under that argument, why do you even arrest anybody?
A person would say "If you arrest me and put me in a British prison, I'm going to kill myself."
RACHAEL BROWN: He says the extradition treaty has become a political football.
DAVID RIVKIN: We live in a world where individuals in one country can carry out crimes against another country.
We're supposed to work on this in a co-operative fashion, we're supposed to respect each other's judicial system.
RACHAEL BROWN: And the treaty could get even more complicated.
Theresa May again.
THERESA MAY: I have decided to introduce a forum bar.
MPs: Hear, hear.
THERESA MAY: This will mean that where prosecution is possible in both the UK and in another state, the British courts will be able to bar prosecution overseas if they believe it is in the interests of justice to do so.
SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: It's a great day for compassion and common sense.
RACHAEL BROWN: Shami Chakrabarti directs the human rights group, Liberty.
SHAMI CHAKRABARTI: It's a future where we will see discretion to consider where alleged activity took place, and where people who are accused of doing things in Great Britain get the opportunity to be tried in Great Britain.
RACHAEL BROWN: It's the same argument that was tested in the recent case of terrorism suspects Babar Ahmad and Talha
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Frankly, his crime is akin to someone picking your locker door, and then going "look, you shouldn't store your wallet in here when you're swimming, it's not very secure".
Close, but needs to be more closely comparable with the actual situation. The systems he accessed had blank passwords. This is more like you putting you wallet in a locker at the swimming baths, but not bothering to lock it, then insisting that the guy who looked inside to see what's in there was going to plant a bomb, steal your identity, sell it on the black market, and is essentially responsible for the downfall of democracy.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I think what will happen is that McKinnon will end up being sentenced to time served. Which is actually fair enough. What he did was illegal and he knew it, but it is not too serious in the grand scheme of things. Certainly shipping him off to a US prison would have been overkill.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
He embarrassed the imbeciles at the pentagon by showing that they don't know their asses from their elbows. That's exactly the same as flying a plane into a building. Therefore he's a terrust! Burn him!!!!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Given how they attempted to fit up Louise Woodward and the threats of the prosecutors to "fry him" it's pretty clear that some people in the US think it's still 1776 and are trying to gain political advantage from a spot of Limey-bashing.
It wouldn't be polite to point out that, though, so I suspect Ms May was being tactful. Like when a girl says she'd love to go on a date with you, but she has to wash her hair.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If the treaty was only for dealing with terrorist suspects, it would have made that clear. "Terrorism" may have been the reason/excuse for Parliament passing the act, but it allows any accused to be extradited. And by the letter of the law, he should have been extradited, I'm sure US authorities have some experience in dealing with suicide risks.
Now, the real debate is should something that has been done in the UK, by a UK citizen be tried in a UK court, indeed at what takes precedence? In a scenario, if a chap shoots a gun across a border, and hit hits someone on the other side of the border, where has the crime taken places? At the point of the shooting, or at the result of the shooting. If shooting a gun isn't illegal in country, would they go free?
If a chap connects to the internet and does something "illegal" in another country, where has the crime taken place? And where do you draw the line? Post a blasphemous article on a bulletin board in Saudi Arabia? You're off to Saudi to be tried? Post a libelous item in the US, on a UK server, can you be extradited to the UK?
try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die
I'm fed up of seeing people abuse provisions that are put in place to protect those with genuine medical/pschological needs and getting away with it.
I've never met the man, have you? Odd how you can diagnose a person as "sane" with no medical background and never having met him. Personally, I tend to believe the medical professionals who actually studied medicine and who actally had face to face contact, rather than from some stupid newspaper reporter.
TLDR: Why do you doubt the diagnosis of a health professional?
Although I am sympathetic towards MacKinnon, I think there is a question as to why it has taken so long to get this whole thing agreed, and a suspicion in people's minds that the medical evidence is being used as a sort of get out of jail free card (by the government rather than MacKinnon himself).
Also, any sort of psychological or medical diagnosis is open to different interpretations. No one in the UK will ever forget Guinness's Ernie Saunders who was "diagnosed" with Alzheimer's, released early from jail and made a miraculous never-seen-before-or-since recovery.
Finally, I think an awful lot of people would feel suicidal at the thought of being shut up in jail in a notoriously brutal prison system until they died
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
What's the problem? Put him in isolation room with constant suicide watch for duration of sentence. Just like did for Bradley Manning.
For sixty years? What sort of a fucking sadist are you?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
A crime is a crime is a crime, regardless of how hard to have to work to perpetrate it.
Yes, but some crimes are more serious than others and not all crimes deserve the same punishment.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Try looking at the motive, rather than the 'damage done' (which is virtually none anyway, apart from embarrassment maybe). Motive is what counts if we are going to punish or lock up people.
The motive is that he wanted to prove the Pentagon/US government knew about UFOs and were hiding the information in some X Files style conspiracy.
It's about as sinister as a 12 year old girl trying to find the phone number of the curly haired one in One Direction.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Have you ever researched the phrase 'power vacuum'? Look at history - there is always a bully - always. So, who fills that roll if the US is out? China? Sound fun to you?
Just because you are powerful doesn't mean you have to be a bully, genius.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Until he is no longer suicide risk.
In the UK we have a lot of Muslims who want to destroy our society and impose Sharia law.
I bet they're vastly outnumbered by the micro-genitaled fascists like you though.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
A person with Asperger's Syndrome is not insane by reason of that diagnosis. The two are as closely related as Athlete's Foot and polydactyly (being born with e.g. 6 toes/foot) : the same parts of the body are affected, but otherwise there's no necessary relationship.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I believe that sentence normally follows trial and conviction. This is punishment while on remand awaiting trial.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
You missed out the "publicly" in "publicly embarrassed the imbeciles".
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Precisely.
To be more precise, at least one US official has expressed the desire to murder the (alleged) hacker using the power of the US state and the Westinghouse grid. Since MacKinnon has grown up in a civilized country where the state doesn't routinely murder it's own citizens, this in itself is sufficient to make the extradition unjustifiable. (IMHO)
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Is that Hobbes of the "Calvin &" variety, or Hobbes of the "nasty, brutish and short" variety?
(Actually, "nasty, brutish and short" doesn't clearly differentiate the two, does it? Wiki-ing, neither does "little attracted by the scholastic learning" help much. One "Hobbes" has a stuffed tiger, the other wrote "Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil")
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Kick him in the nuts as well, why don't you? Just a second, I'll get my staple gun and pin out his ballbag on the door.
Do you have some chilli powder to hand?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
If he's deemed at risk of suicide then it's obvious that being an ass burger isn't his only problem; suicide attempts/threats are a sign of clinical depression (although I don't see how that would matter, but I'm neither a medical doctor nor a British lawyer). Possibly he has other issued as well.
Free Martian Whores!