NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6521255.stm

UK hacker loses extradition fight

A British man has lost his High Court fight against extradition to the US for allegedly carrying out the "biggest military computer hack of all time".
Glasgow-born Gary McKinnon, of north London, is accused of gaining access to 97 US military and Nasa computers.

Home Secretary John Reid granted the US request to extradite him for trial.

At the High Court in London, his lawyers argued the 41-year-old had been subjected to "improper threats" and the move would breach his human rights.

His lawyers had argued that, if extradited, he would face an unknown length of time in pre-trial detention, with no likelihood of bail.

He would also face a long prison sentence - "in the region of 45 years" - and may not be allowed to serve part of the sentence at home in the UK, his lawyers had said.

But, on Tuesday, Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Mr Justice Goldring dismissed his legal challenge, saying they could not find any grounds for appeal.
Ben Cooper, for Mr McKinnon, said his client would now seek to make an appeal against his extradition at the House of Lords.

"We will certainly be applying for this court to certify a point of law of public importance and to grant leave," he said.

Speaking later, solicitor Jeffrey Anderson said alleged threats by US authorities, including one from New Jersey prosecutors that Mr McKinnon "would fry", would be among issues raised.
That had been a "chilling and intimidating" reference to capital punishment by the electric chair, he added.
It now looked as though the US would try to prosecute Mr McKinnon as a cyber-terrorist, Mr Anderson said.

"This could lead to him spending the rest of his life in prison in the US, with repatriation to serve his sentence in his home country denied as punishment for contesting his extradition."
Mr McKinnon has never denied that he accessed the computer networks of a wide number of US military institutions between February 2001 and March 2002.

Mr McKinnon, arrested in November 2002, has always maintained that he was motivated by curiosity and that he only managed to get into the networks because of lax security.

Yeah...

Umm...

I think there might be grounds for an appeal.

No... as far as I'm aware that was the appeal.

They're appealing to the house of lords.

No... as far as I'm aware that was the appeal. Or the judges saying there wasn't grounds for one. The guy is going to the US.

How, among others in New Labour, I loathe John Reid.

Mr McKinnon, arrested in November 2002, has always maintained that he was motivated by curiosity and that he only managed to get into the networks because of lax security.

I wonder if Mr McKinnon would have thought it alright to walk into someone's unlocked house out of curiosity.

No... as far as I'm aware that was the appeal. Or the judges saying there wasn't grounds for one. The guy is going to the US.

How, among others in New Labour, I loathe John Reid.

Though foriegn, I note that all who enter the home office rapidly become right wing authotarian law passing mad assholes. I suspect pods.

How to be made of phail when quoting someone's comments:

Literalism: Taking an illiteral, colloquial expression and arguing that it is literal.
Ex:We'll make him fry!
Argued by the defense attorney in this incident as being a statement that the prosecutor will go for the death penalty, specifically by the electric chair. This cannot be taken literally for two reasons: First, in that this crime is not one that is subject to capital punishment under the law. Second, that the state of New Jersey does not use electrocution as a means of execution.

This statement should instead be read as a statement of certainty. The prosecutor is expressing his belief that they have sufficient evidence for an easy guilty conviction, and that Mr. McKinnon will spend an extended period of time in jail for having committed this crime.

If the Military was smart they would hire McKinnon to help design a more secure system.

They're appealing to the house of lords.*sigh* so much for skim reading.

=Greater ValiaI wonder if Mr McKinnon would have thought it alright to walk into someone's unlocked house out of curiosity.They should be greatful that he did it, and not someone with actual malicious intent. The US is just out to get someone who thoroughly embarressed them. They say he caused $700,000 - pfft, bullshit.

Though foriegn, I note that all who enter the home office rapidly become right wing authotarian law passing mad assholes. I suspect pods.Ooh, top marks for knowledge of foreign politics. However, I suspect that they were all like that to begin with. They only needed a stint in the Home Office for their true colours to show through.

They should be greatful that he did it, and not someone with actual malicious intent. The US is just out to get someone who thoroughly embarressed them. They say he caused $700,000 - pfft, bullshit.

Would you be grateful if a perfect stranger let themselves into your home?

Would you be grateful if a perfect stranger let themselves into your home?

It's happened to me before
I yelled at the guy to get out and he left
I was greatful that he didn't do anythign harmful and didn't feel that legal action needed to be taken against him.

It's happened to me before
I yelled at the guy to get out and he left
I was greatful that he didn't do anythign harmful and didn't feel that legal action needed to be taken against him.

What was he doing in your home?

No... as far as I'm aware that was the appeal. Or the judges saying there wasn't grounds for one. The guy is going to the US.

How, among others in New Labour, I loathe John Reid.

According to the piece I saw on BBC News 24 there is an appeal going to the House of Lords. I strongly suspect that if they back the judges decision then he may be able to go to the European Courts.

On a personal viewpoint I think that the US govt is trying to make an example of this guy. He's cracked their security showed, how lax it was (and probably still is) and left them with egg on their faces. I find it amazing that people can kill people and get a lighter sentence than this guy can. I hope his appeal succeeds and the US govt realise that they can't go around prosecuting people from other countries just cos they feel like it.

How, among others in New Labour, I loathe John Reid.

Agreed.

What was he doing in your home?

I didn't ask I just yelled at him and he quickly turned around and left without comment.

It's happened to me before
I yelled at the guy to get out and he left
I was greatful that he didn't do anythign harmful and didn't feel that legal action needed to be taken against him.

But the fact remains he broke into your house, with, presumably malicious intentions (why else would he have been in your house?). Surely you can see that the only reason why he didn't do anything harmful was that you were home at the time and able to scare him away. And you didn't answer my question, were you grateful he broke into your house (even if he didn't do anything harmful)?

But the fact remains he broke into your house, with, presumably malicious intentions (why else would he have been in your house?). Surely you can see that the only reason why he didn't do anything harmful was that you were home at the time and able to scare him away. And you didn't answer my question, were you grateful he broke into your house (even if he didn't do anything harmful)?



He didn't break anything. He turned the door knob and walked in and I don't presume any intentions because that would be silly unless perhaps I saw him with a ski mask and a weapon or somethign to that effect.

Sure I CAN see that there could be more reasons for the tresspass than just wanting to do some evil. The property I was on had a couple homes for rent and he was most likely looking for the rentals to check them out (with just a little bit of thought, I am sure I could come up with several more scenarios).

Besides, I took the question as, shouldnt the military be grateful he didnt cause any harm when he had the chance. Thats what I was responding to. You question seemed irrelevant.

According to the piece I saw on BBC News 24 there is an appeal going to the House of Lords. I strongly suspect that if they back the judges decision then he may be able to go to the European Courts.

On a personal viewpoint I think that the US govt is trying to make an example of this guy. He's cracked their security showed, how lax it was (and probably still is) and left them with egg on their faces. I find it amazing that people can kill people and get a lighter sentence than this guy can. I hope his appeal succeeds and the US govt realise that they can't go around prosecuting people from other countries just cos they feel like it.


97 counts of computer hacking, commited against the US government is the reason he's facing in the region of 45 years (the sentences are stacked up). Also, this crime was commited against the US, therefore the US should have the right to prosecute him. If this had happened against a European country (Germany, France, Italy, etc), it would be the same situation, the country that was "attacked" would (IMO) have the right to prosecute him.

I wonder if Mr McKinnon would have thought it alright to walk into someone's unlocked house out of curiosity.No, but he might be silly enough to walk into an unlocked government storage facility, if he thought aliens and devices for producing free energy were stashed inside.

Why are you distorting this into a matter of privacy insasion? It isn't. Makes more sense to try spinning it into a matter of public interest and claiming his hacking was legit and warrented.

My 2 cents is he's daft, but is now being made an example of, to divert attention from how daft NASA and the US military is. Calling it cyber terrorism is pure irony. He terrorised no one, but the US is now trying to terrorise people with more curiosity than respect for authority.

Just one more reason to support 'terrorism'. I'll stop my UNICEF donations and spend it on subsidising a 28 year old unemployed conspiracy nut with a paypall account instead.

97 counts of computer hacking, commited against the US government is the reason he's facing in the region of 45 years (the sentences are stacked up). Also, this crime was commited against the US, therefore the US should have the right to prosecute him. If this had happened against a European country (Germany, France, Italy, etc), it would be the same situation, the country that was "attacked" would (IMO) have the right to prosecute him.So.. When the US extradites Cheney to stand trial in Germany, we should extradite McKinnon, or what are you saying?

He didn't break anything. He turned the door knob and walked in and I don't presume any intentions because that would be silly unless perhaps I saw him with a ski mask and a weapon or somethign to that effect.

Sure I CAN see that there could be more reasons for the tresspass than just wanting to do some evil. The property I was on had a couple homes for rent and he was most likely looking for the rentals to check them out (with just a little bit of thought, I am sure I could come up with several more scenarios).

Besides, I took the question as, shouldnt the military be grateful he didnt cause any harm when he had the chance. Thats what I was responding to. You question seemed irrelevant.

Breaking and entering doesn't require anything physical to be broken.

And no, the military shouldn't be grateful. The man commited a crime. The military should feel lucky that he didn't do anything malicious, but not grateful.

Breaking and entering doesn't require anything physical to be broken.

And no, the military shouldn't be grateful. The man commited a crime. The military should feel lucky that he didn't do anything malicious, but not grateful.


So they should be dissapointed that he didn't cause any harm whatsoever?

Shouldn't they at least be grateful that he exposed flaws in their seciurity system so that they could tighten it up for people who might actually have malicious intent?

Sounds like a pretty stupid guy. It's not exactly a secret that pissing off the US government is a bad idea, or that the British government will go along with whatever they want.

97 counts of computer hacking, commited against the US government is the reason he's facing in the region of 45 years (the sentences are stacked up). Also, this crime was commited against the US, therefore the US should have the right to prosecute him. If this had happened against a European country (Germany, France, Italy, etc), it would be the same situation, the country that was "attacked" would (IMO) have the right to prosecute him.
Pfffft. Tell that to the Natwest Three. There you had a crime, if indeed one occurred, commited in Britain against a british bank, and they've been extradited to the US too, with only the most tenuous link to America.

We really have to stick up for our citizens and put our foot down before shipping them to the US unless they can prove that their justice system is up to snuff. we're only just getting back another British citizen from the US after 5 years, without a conviction.

He didn't break anything. He turned the door knob and walked in and I don't presume any intentions because that would be silly unless perhaps I saw him with a ski mask and a weapon or somethign to that effect.

Sure I CAN see that there could be more reasons for the tresspass than just wanting to do some evil. The property I was on had a couple homes for rent and he was most likely looking for the rentals to check them out (with just a little bit of thought, I am sure I could come up with several more scenarios).
This is a naïve way of looking at things isn't it? Someone enters your home without invitation and you automatically assume their intentions were benign.

Besides, I took the question as, shouldnt the military be grateful he didnt cause any harm when he had the chance. Thats what I was responding to. You question seemed irrelevant.
How is my question irrelevant? The hacker in question broke into a computer system that was not his. Since you seem to think this is perfectly acceptable, I'm asking you how you would feel if someone broke into your home.

And you seem to be forgetting that he broke the law. Unless of course you think he should not be punished for his crime...

So they should be dissapointed that he didn't cause any harm whatsoever?

Shouldn't they at least be grateful that he exposed flaws in their seciurity system so that they could tighten it up for people who might actually have malicious intent?


I didn't say they should feel disappointed, they should feel lucky that he wasn't there for malicious intent.

Grateful? No. They should also feel a little embarrased that the security was so lax, and that flaws allowed someone to gain access illegally.

So.. When the US extradites Cheney to stand trial in Germany, we should extradite McKinnon, or what are you saying?


What crimes did Cheney allegedly commit in or against Germany?

Why are you distorting this into a matter of privacy insasion? It isn't. Makes more sense to try spinning it into a matter of public interest and claiming his hacking was legit and warrented.
Except it is a privacy invasion.

My 2 cents is he's daft, but is now being made an example of, to divert attention from how daft NASA and the US military is. Calling it cyber terrorism is pure irony. He terrorised no one, but the US is now trying to terrorise people with more curiosity than respect for authority.
This is all true, but the fact remains that he broke the law. And its no secret that hacking into government networks (even if his intentions were benign) is not a smart thing to do (not to mention clearly illegal).

He didn't break anything. He turned the door knob and walked in...

That's breaking and entering.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=98&bold=

This is a naïve way of looking at things isn't it?

No it isnt, because I am able to see the world in shades of grey rather than black or white. Besies you obviously misunderstood what I wrote.

Someone enters your home without invitation and you automatically assume their intentions were benign.

No I didn't automatically assume anything. Did you miss the part where I said I didn't presume what his intentions were? It was written plain as day. I think you read what you wanted to out of that so that you could have a valid point. I didn't make an assumption as to his intentions and as long as no harm was done, I am unbothered.


How is my question irrelevant? The hacker in question broke into a computer system that was not his. Since you seem to think this is perfectly acceptable, I'm asking you how you would feel if someone broke into your home.

And you seem to be forgetting that he broke the law. Unless of course you think he should not be punished for his crime...


I explained why I thought your question was irrelevant. If you really need me too, I'll explain it again. I don't have a reason to be grateful for that guy to have walked into my house, but I am grateful that he caused no harm while having illegally trespassed. **If anyone can figure out a way to make that any more clear for GV, I might need your services. **

I didn't forget that he broke the law, but I do think that he shoudl be employed rather than punished. No harm was caused and he could be a great asset to our national security. Had he actually caused any harm then my opion would be very different.

What crimes did Cheney allegedly commit in or against Germany?Crimes against humanity, of which Germans and thus Germany, are part.Except it is a privacy invasion. And whose privacy was invaded, may I ask? Are the NASA and/or the military individuals with a right to privacy? I could've sworn they were institutions.This is all true, but the fact remains that he broke the law. And its no secret that hacking into government networks (even if his intentions were benign) is not a smart thing to do (not to mention clearly illegal).I'm not disagreeing at all. Condemning the man for terrorism and sentencing him to life in prison, however, is as monstrous as it is ironic.

What if it had been a journalist doing it, for the same reasons. Would he still be condemned as a terrorist and face extradition to a bandit state, set on locking him in a hole for the rest of his days?

I fully support any country's refusal to extradite to us until we renounce the military commissions act of 2006. With that act, he could be held indefinitely, waterboarded into confessing, put on trial with that confession, and put to death. All, basically, at the president's whim.

I note that all who enter the home office rapidly become right wing authotarian law passing mad assholes, desperately enthusiastic to suck the Americans' collective cock.

Fixed.

They don't seem to be very eager to co-operate with us ever; we really should learn to tell them to fuck off until they start.

I wonder if Mr McKinnon would have thought it alright to walk into someone's unlocked house out of curiosity.

I would, if the house was swallowing trillions of taxpayer dollars a year. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of furniture they'd bought.

I would, if the house was swallowing trillions of taxpayer dollars a year. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of furniture they'd bought.Especially when it's not someone's but everyone's home.

Especially when it's not someone's but everyone's home.

Ok, you have to admit that part of the analogy only works if the person is an American citizen. As he's a brit, it is more like his good friend's home. And what he did is less like opening the front door and strolling in, and more like popping open a window, sticking your head in for a look, then closing it and leaving. While this should be discouraged, it certainly doesn't deserve 45 years jailtime.

And let me also put it plainly: All nations should refuse to extradite to us until we revoke the MCA and reestablish basic human rights for foreign prisoners.

Ok, you have to admit that part of the analogy only works if the person is an American citizen. As he's a brit, it is more like his good friend's home. And what he did is less like opening the front door and strolling in, and more like popping open a window, sticking your head in for a look, then closing it and leaving. While this should be discouraged, it certainly doesn't deserve 45 years jailtime.Alright, but if we're going to complicate things, I think it's worth considering we're talking about the closest of friends, and that McHack only did it because he was convinced this closest of friends was stabbing him in the back.

I agree with you though. It should be discouraged. Even relatively benign behaviour caused by paranoid conspiracy crap, is no excuse to rummage thru your mate's shit.And let me also put it plainly: All nations should refuse to extradite to us until we revoke the MCA and reestablish basic human rights for foreign prisoners.And I still agree with you.

97 counts of computer hacking, commited against the US government is the reason he's facing in the region of 45 years (the sentences are stacked up). Also, this crime was commited against the US, therefore the US should have the right to prosecute him. If this had happened against a European country (Germany, France, Italy, etc), it would be the same situation, the country that was "attacked" would (IMO) have the right to prosecute him.

And somehow, US soldiers committing crimes on foreign soil are not subject to prosecution by local governments...

Double standards much?

And somehow, US soldiers committing crimes on foreign soil are not subject to prosecution by local governments...

Double standards much?

*G-Men come and drag you away.*

I say imprison him for 40 years.

What was the guy thinking? "Oh, I want to know if I can" or "I want to look cool to my friends". Sorry dude, you´re 41 years old, youre not a kid anymore, jail for you.

They should imprison him with the guy who has untreatable tuberculosis.