Obama Won't Intervene Over British Hacker McKinnon 268
CWmike writes "President Barack Obama said on Tuesday that he can't intervene in the long-running case of a British hacker charged with breaking into US military computers. Gary McKinnon's case came up during discussions with British Prime Minister David Cameron in Washington. The UK Home Office is reviewing whether McKinnon's medical condition is grounds to block his extradition to the US, which was approved in 2006. McKinnon has yet to stand trial in the US, where he was indicted by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2002 for hacking into 97 military and NASA computers between February 2001 and March 2002. Obama said during a press conference with Cameron that by tradition US presidents do not get involved in extraditions or prosecutions. 'I trust that this will get resolved in a way that underscores the seriousness of the issue, but also underscores the fact that we work together and we can find an appropriate solution,' Obama said."
Asperger's (Score:5, Insightful)
Citing Asperger's as a medical condition to prevent extradition is silly. Being socially deficient doesn't make you incapable of determining right and wrong, if in fact he really has the condition at all considering the ridiculous amount of self-diagnosis out there. Genuine Asperger's is a form of autism and deeply impacts your life. The guy left a threat on one of the computers promising future hacks--he knew what he was doing.
This is starting to sound like another "Free Mitnick" movement, where people support a guy who legitimately deserves legal punishment just to make themselves feel compassionate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. If he had robbed a bank no one would be rallying to his cause. He is accused of a crime and should stand trial for it.
Re:Asperger's (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Asperger's (Score:4, Insightful)
Being socially deficient doesn't make you incapable of determining right and wrong,
...that's reserved for lawyers and elected politicians.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...that's reserved for lawyers and elected politicians.
and, it would appear, for the Slashot modder who can't resist giving the most predictable of cheap shots a boost-up to +4, Insightful.
Re:Asperger's (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course he should stand trial. In the UK.
Re: (Score:2)
For crimes commited if not in a different country (yay internet blurring boundries) but upon a different country? I can certainly see why there is a debate about this.
I personally am a fan of trying people where the victims are.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you post a picture of Mohammad then you should be extradited and tried in Saudi Arabia, because that's where the victims of your crime* are?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So If I stand in Ireland and shoot someone across the boarder in Northern Ireland I should be tried in Ireland?
I mean I was never in the UK after all?
But wait I didn't commit any crime in Ireland at all so why even be arrested.
Yes it is an extreme case but you could do the same thing with Telephone and or wire fraud.
Simple truth is this guy is going to get a slap on the wrist and maybe some time in a low security country club prison.
Odds are he will get timed served and be sent back with probation.
It's not Aspergers, it's deeper than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a very slippery slope you are on. If there is a legal differential, there is a societal differential. If the difference did not exist, the laws would be in harmony. Which would imply that extradition would not be needed.
Extreme examples abound -- countries that refuse to extradite criminals that would be executed, because execution is deemed morally wrong in one jurisdiction, and morally right in another.
Now, in this case, breaking into a computer is considered wrong in both jurisdictions. Why extradite? The only reason to is to apply a different punishment. It will either be more, or less, severe. But, understand, it will be different and not in accord with the original countries societal norms.
Since the defendant is a member of the original country, and, by extension a member of its society, he should be tried in accordance with its societal norms.
It interests me that this is exactly what he requested.
It is morally wrong for the leaders of his society to permit this extradition. In doing so, they show themselves to be either weak or dismissive of the democracy that elected them. The last time I checked, the UK was a democracy, and under its own rule.
The defendant did not commit the crimes in the US, and didn't physically flee US jurisdiction. If this had occurred, I would be supportive of his extradition.
Only the most extreme sentences can overturn the right to be held accountable to ones society. These are generally (in my society) those which will also refugee status to be granted. Simple theft, breaking and entering, or computer crime come nowhere near this bar.
Allowing this extradition means that the UK government is abdicating its sovereignty. The people of the UK should push to bring down this government, as it is no longer following the rule of UK law and society.
Re:Asperger's (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course he should stand trial. In the UK.
Crimes are usually prosecuted where the body falls - and not where the shot was fired.
That would allow the criminal to choose a safe venue from which to commit his crimes by remote control.
Re: (Score:2)
So if I sit on US soil and blow up your boat in international waters by remote control, the US can't prosecute me for breaking federal laws?
But if someone in the US puts up a picture of two ladies kissing on a Saudi Arabian web site, they should be extradited with the possibility of being stoned to death?
Re: (Score:2)
Ask Terry Childs.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
1. "The US are calling him a terrorist"
The US calls everybody a "terrorist"
2. "Do you believe he would get off lightly if extradited to the US"
"The US is world famous for unreasonable draconian sentencing!
3. "or do you think he would be made an example of?"
A show trial in a US federal will be as fair as any Medieval Auto de fé and just as much of a spectacle.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>If he had robbed a bank no one would be rallying to his cause.
But it's not a crime to rob a bank if the front door was left unlocked..... and you didn't actually rob anything, but just left a note saying "Hi. I was here." You could be charged with trespassing maybe but that's about it. And even then you could claim you thought the bank was open for business.
Re:Asperger's (Score:5, Interesting)
You're mixing it up. Free Mitnick was about the 3 years of no due process. It didn't matter if he was guilty or not at that point--the law states that a lack of due process means you go free. The gov't didn't do that, but should have, hence the outcry of support.
Re: (Score:2)
where people support a guy who legitimately deserves legal punishment just to make themselves feel compassionate.
Which would be more democratic and which would be more moral? Letting him go with lesson learned or legal ramifications.
Re: (Score:2)
How about letting the courts in the country where the crime may committed hold the trial? No extradition required.
Re: (Score:2)
Was it committed in the UK? Hacking into US Hardware could be analogized to breaking into house in the US.
NOT extraditing him would probably set a bad precedent - leaving every country open to cyber attacks if any crimes committed against another nation are not covered in extradition treaties.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You break into a house in the US and you are in the US.
You host pirated movies in Sweden and you can ignore DMCA requests.
Look at it this way...
I sure as hell don't want to get extradited to Saudi Arabia and be executed for premarital sex when the act is only a misdemeanor in Mississippi where it was actually committed.
Extradition, in this case, most certainly does represent a very bad precedent.
Re:Asperger's (Score:4, Informative)
Than you don't understand how Extradition really works.
There is a reason there are Extradition treaties. Murder may be illegal in many countries but we generally still extradite them back to where the crime was committed to properly serve justice at a sentence deemed appropriate by those affected. (We'll also make note that there is no extradition treaty to Saudi Arabia, because their laws vary so much).
The ambiguity falls on where this crime was comitted, the individual was not in the States, but the information he was accessing was. The victims of the crimes are in the States and thats why it should be held there. (As there is no victim in Pre-marital Sex, it wouldn't make sense to extradite someone to the middle east either).
Not serving Extradition will only serve to sever the ties between the two nations.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was never in Saudi Arabia.
And McKinnon was never in America (at least while he was supposedly hacking DoD computers).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I had premarital sex in Saudi Arabia. Then I ran back to Israel.
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re:Asperger's (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think there's much argument over whether the guy should be punished. The argument is over how severely he should be punished, given that he 1) didn't cause any damage, 2) wasn't acting out of malice, and 3) was at least accomplish what he did in large part due to the incompetence of those who are, in theory, supposed to be competent in protecting themselves from such attacks.
What people are worried about is that he is going to have the book thrown at him not because of the merits of what his actions deserve, but because he caused a national embarrassment and those who prosecuted him want to use him as an example, a deterrence to others.
Plus, there's a legitimate question of jurisdiction. If I commit a crime at point A against someone at point B that is thousands of miles away, who gets to decide what the punishment is? The legal system at point A, where the crime was actually being committed, or the legal system at point B, where the target or victim of the crime is located? When dealing with the U.S., there's a general impression that it's always in the U.S. regardless of who did what where, and to be honest, there's a pretty good foundation for that impression. Cases like this don't help.
In this sense, I do not blame the British people for not wanting American "justice" slamming down on one of their own citizens. If I were British, I'd be fighting tooth and nail against this extradition, too. Not so much because I care for this particular individual, but because I wouldn't want to be extradited because I supposedly committed a crime in some other country from the comfort of the living room of my suburban castle thousands of miles away.
Re:Asperger's (Score:4, Informative)
Indeed, it's interesting that this is posted on the same day as the the Senate unanimously decides to prohibit libel tourism [slashdot.org]. The idea there was presumably that if you do something in one country, you act under that country's legal jurisdiction. Extradition would make sense if he could only be prosecuted in the US, however what he did is an offense under the UK's Computer Misuse Act and he could be appropriately punished under UK law. The only reason to demand an extradition was to inflict a much harsher punishment than the UK courts would be likely to hand down (probably less than the maximum five years).
Re:Asperger's (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, it's interesting that this is posted on the same day as the the Senate unanimously decides to prohibit libel tourism. The idea there was presumably that if you do something in one country, you act under that country's legal jurisdiction. Extradition would make sense if he could only be prosecuted in the US, however what he did is an offense under the UK's Computer Misuse Act and he could be appropriately punished under UK law. The only reason to demand an extradition was to inflict a much harsher punishment than the UK courts would be likely to hand down (probably less than the maximum five years).
Apples and turnips.
The idea under the libel tourism bit is to protect free speech in the America. This is a hacking case. The hacking activity is a crime in both places - and the crime itself took place in both palces. Computer Misuse was violated in UK. Hacking was committed inside the UK, but the target was in US jurisdiction.
From my POV, he should be prosecuted in UK under the terms of Computer Misuse Act and be appropriately punished (if found guilty) under UK law. Also, he should be he should be tried under US law for his crimes committed in US jurisdiction.
The dollar figure is BS - its not like he did damage to the hardware, programs, or data. But he did hack the system...and should be punished.
And regarding the Asperger's crap - that is not an excuse.
Re:Asperger's (Score:5, Insightful)
Not for the people who are involved. If your systems get "browsed through" would you not be combing through just to make sure the guy didn't decide to do something malicious instead? Or do you trust the hacker that just cracked your SSH password that all he did was "look around"?
The numerical amount may be high, but that could encompass a lot of costs in having to hire forensic investigators to check out each and every system (since breaking into one can also lead to breaking into others). So you've got the cost of downtime for everyone using the systems (because you want to freeze the system for investigation), the cost of the investigation itself, plus the cost of incidentals (e.g., changing passwords, etc).
No sane admin treats a system that was "just looked over" as untouched - they all treat it as someone intentionally put something on the machine, and until proven otherwise, the machine is untrustworthy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet a lot of the "incidentals" included in the cost did include re-se
Re:Asperger's (Score:4, Insightful)
Not for the people who are involved. If your systems get "browsed through" would you not be combing through just to make sure the guy didn't decide to do something malicious instead? Or do you trust the hacker that just cracked your SSH password that all he did was "look around"?
Well maybe if that had any bearing on reality...
As the case happens to be, not a single of those systems had a password. He just hit enter at that prompt.
So no, I fully believe that if you refuse to set a password on your computer when its painfully obvious to anyone passwords exist and can be used, then no you won't give a rats ass when someone else accesses that data.
In this case, the people whos JOB it was, assigned by our government, who were tasked with securing these systems from the public, are the ones that need to be in prison on death row for treason charges.
The system operators refusing to put passwords on it are the ones that provided the window of opportunity for true terrorists to take advantage of their stupidity and cause massive harm to our country.
These assholes got paid to make sure this didn't happen, and clearly are incompetent as they don't know what a password is.
It is besides the fact that no actual terrorist attack happened, but they sure as fuck held the door open for them so deserve punished for all the potential crimes that are a direct result of their actions.
Deal with the real problem first, and set a password. If someone actually broke in through a password, we might be a little more sympathetic.
And before anyone says "But it shouldn't be MY fault if someone breaks in my house cuz I didn't lock my door..." sure, maybe, unless you accepted the job of securing that house from terrorists and accepted a fat paycheck to do so, AND lied to the public claiming you are doing a great job securing that house.
Then yes, yes it is your fault, and yes you should be held accountable.
If hitting enter on a password prompt is a crime, then the person not setting that password committed it, as they are the only person who could do anything about it. Not the person hitting enter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I were British, I'd be fighting tooth and nail against this extradition, too. Not so much because I care for this particular individual, but because I wouldn't want to be extradited because I supposedly committed a crime in some other country from the comfort of the living room of my suburban castle thousands of miles away.
Also the low burden of proof that the US authorities need to provide is an issue. It's made a bit of a nonsense of the 'fast track' extradition process: after several years, and appeals to the House of Lords, the case is still ongoing. Would it have been so burdensome for the US to have laid an outline case before a magistrate in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
This is completely irrelevant. If I shoot somebody because their bodyguard is incompetent, I shouldn't receive any less of a punishment for the crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it completely irrelevant?
If you shoot somebody because their bodyguard was incompetent and didn't ensure that his protectee was properly protected, then I'm sure that relatives of the shootee would have grounds to sue him for at least breach of contract, or perhaps they might go as far as considering that the bodyguard aided and abetted you by turning a blind eye, stepping out of the line of fire, etc?
If what he did was accomplished in large part due to the actions of those who were supposed to ensure th
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, there's a legitimate question of jurisdiction. If I commit a crime at point A against someone at point B that is thousands of miles away, who gets to decide what the punishment is? The legal system at point A, where the crime was actually being committed, or the legal system at point B, where the target or victim of the crime is located?
I am not a lawyer (otherwise I probably would already know the answer to this): if, in the United States, a person in State A, standing very close to the border with State B, fires a gun, the bullet from which kills someone standing across the border in State B, who has jurisdiction?
It seems like that sort of question would have been already answered, even if questions of crimes committed remotely through the Internet have not been fully thrashed out.
Re: (Score:2)
The argument is over how severely he should be punished, given that he 1) didn't cause any damage, 2) wasn't acting out of malice, and 3) was at least accomplish what he did in large part due to the incompetence of those who are, in theory, supposed to be competent in protecting themselves from such attacks.
Imagine that a hacker makes his way into your system.
How much money and how many man-hours will it take to investigate and repair the breach?
Will you give a rat's ass about his motives?
Re: (Score:2)
My system has better security than US military seems to have, but let's ignore that for the sake of argument.
Who cares? I'm doing that work because I left my computer wide open to attack. If I can't simply restore a backup... though.
And in any case, this is not anyone's system. This is something's system. All these "imagine someone broke into your home/system/whatev
Re: (Score:2)
1) didn't cause any damage,
Wish people would stop this fallacy! The second he broke in, damage was done. As a result of his break in, lots and lots of man hours are now required to detect, document, re-install, document, fix, document, validate, document. And that's not counting related systems which must now also be validated to determine their trustworthiness. No ifs, ands, or buts, damage absolutely was done.
2) wasn't acting out of malice,
Might have a bearing on punishing. Has no bearing on prosecution unless there exists extenuating circumstances which may oth
Re: (Score:2)
And then they wonder why we don't have enough "cyberwarriors" [slashdot.org] to properly secure our networks.
Might != Right (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, the whole "victims are to blame if they didn't make the crime impossible" meme is starting to rub me the wrong way.
No doubt, some people should have secured their computers better. But, no, that doesn't automatically give anyone right to do something just because they can.
There are millions of homes out there that just about anyone who isn't a quadriplegic _can_ break in. If nothing else, an axe takes care of most doors and a simple brick can defeat most windows. Talk about gaping security holes when securing one's home, eh? We should start excusing the criminals because the homeowners didn't make their house as secure as a bunker, eh? Well, no, it doesn't work that way.
There are millions of bycicles out there that one can steal quite easily for a quick joyride. Most of the older locks can be "bumped" by a 10 year old. But no, we don't excuse someone just because the bike wasn't impossible to steal.
Etc.
In no other domain do we think, "well, the victim failed to make the crime impossible, so the criminal has a good excuse there." Being able to do something isn't and never was an automatic right to do it.
So, really, exactly why should #3 even be a factor at all when it comes to computers? Just because to some nerds the harm _they_ can do should be legal, while harm done to them (e.g., bullying in school) should be a hanging offence? Do some people have delusions of being royalty, or what?
like real UFO is on a system with blank passwords (Score:2)
like real UFO is on a system with blank passwords did he hit a trap?
Re: (Score:2)
I find it funny that everybody seems to have forgotten that he was searching for UFO related material, and that he found some.
What I find funny is that people actually believe he found UFO evidence. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. But that hardly makes all fictions truthful. And this story sounds awfully fictitious. Especially when no such evidence was ever produced.
Along those lines, I'd love to hear a detailed story about how this guy went about his attack. But sadly, no such details are ever likely to come to light. What we do know is that he read a lot of UFO conspiracy works. One work mentioned Building 8 at
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really. UFO related material. Such as what? What material did he uncover? What part of his claims have any evidence whatsoever to back it up?
Hm. You appear to already be several steps ahead here, so it's clear that you are invested in the outcome of this conversation. But in the interest of completeness, his claims are summed up here, [wired.com] and the long version in interview form, here. [google.com]
You appear to find his claims offensive. I don't. They seem quite mundane, actually. If he were going to make up a bunch of unverifiable fictions, then why not something more dramatic? Nothing he says really defies belief.
As for a honeytrap - that's an even more amusing. NASA has enough on its plate without creating honeytraps; especially honeytraps for something as obscure as UFO conspiracy theorists.
Maybe. Gary's description of the accusatio
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Okay, you seem interested in really discussing this, so I'll offer the following. . .
1. I was being lazy in my original comments and in review I don't find this case a good example to take a stand on. The ground is just too squishy.
2. I DO however think that this serves as an excellent quality for any public relations efforts to capitalize on. As I've said, when it comes to spin, looking at the end results is an excellent gauge of the intentions behind these high-profile cases. The media doesn't shine a
Re:Knee jerk. (Score:4, Interesting)
1. I was being lazy in my original comments and in review I don't find this case a good example to take a stand on. The ground is just too squishy.
Fair enough. If I had applied my perspective to the case and found a lot of merit to what he's claiming, I'd point that out as well.
The Gary McKinnon case serves several ends; it is a public display of what happens when one goes against the state. It is a means of justifying the further fortification of the internet. And it is a means to add another coat of smear to the idea of a UFO presence.
From my experience, I'd say the Feds are after two things with McKinnon. They want to make an example of him. And they're following what they know. The US Government generally hasn't been very good at groking infosec. But the Government exists on a foundation of Law. They really get that and are really eager to use that tool. When all you understand is the hammer, you use that on everything - nail or screw included.
I've been in infosec meetings where the technical details of a threat and mitigation are glossed over. Meanwhile, the room lights up when the FBI agent talks about a case they're preparing to prosecute and equipment they've compounded as evidence. I'm rather disgusted with all that since, as I noted earlier, I find that as a sign of failure not a sign of progress. But that's been the traditional environment.
I suppose it's possible that this also serves to smear the UFO culture in general. McKinnon certainly does nobody in that camp any favors and, IMHO, serious UFO researchers should be outspoken in distancing themselves from him.
I would direct you to Richard Dolan's efforts if you are interested in reading the state of the current understanding of the UFO issue.
Noted.
For your part, you have now implied several times that you work closely with NASA in some capacity and that you have some fairly high level access to security proceedings there. I'm not sure what to make of that. Are you not a bit worried to be discussing internal policy on Slashdot, especially in light of this story about computer security?
Keep in mind that NASA is not entirely a single entity. From the outside it looks like a big, monolithic agency. On the inside, it's more of a schizophrenic collection of Centers and Directorates with power and autonomy existing based on what budgets any given entity controls (although there's been more attempts at top-down control in recent years).
I'm fairly comfortable with what I've commented on. I don't comment on specific policy. I don't provide technical details. I don't discuss any depth of NASA system security posture. And I wasn't involved with McKinnon's case so I'd make a really poor target for his defense to subpoena in a bid to weaken the case against their client.
Re:Asperger's (Score:4, Insightful)
If you chose to not install locks on all your doors - and indeed, you just left all your doors and windows open all the time whether you were home or not - then someone who walked in without your permission could and should be charged with trespassing.
After that, though, if you decide that you "don't feel safe anymore" and have to spend $800,000 installing locks on your doors and windows, you don't get to claim that the trespasser caused $800,000 in damages to you. You should have and could have installed those locks and improved your security anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is wrong is IMHO a segment of the UK public are trying to prevent him from even going to trial much less being sentenced. They have decided that the US will impose the harshest penalty on this man when they have not imposed any penalty at all yet.
Also there has been no trial at all yet. So you are also assuming that he is totally telling you the truth. The he didn't crack a single password and he didn't delete a single file.
All very trusting of an admitted criminal.
Erm, no. Not quite. He committed the crime in the UK and should be tried in the UK. He admits the crime and wants to be tried in the UK. We ALL know he's admitted to the crime. We all know he wants to be tried in the UK. He is (pretty much) scared shitless that he's going to be thrown to the lions and he'll be made an example of - and that in itself probably constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment.
And when you say crack a single password you make him sound like some evil genius when what he actually d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're missing the point - Asperger's doesn't justify his crime, but it may make him unfit to stand trial, particularly if he is removed from his home and taken to a foreign nation he sees as hostile.
Re:Asperger's (Score:5, Interesting)
Citing Asperger's as a medical condition to prevent extradition is silly. Being socially deficient doesn't make you incapable of determining right and wrong, if in fact he really has the condition at all considering the ridiculous amount of self-diagnosis out there. Genuine Asperger's is a form of autism and deeply impacts your life.
As someone who works very closely with children diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, I can tell you that some of them are very incapable of determining right from wrong. Some of them are extremely violent, and will threaten to stab or kill the other children (these are kids in kindergarten, grade 1, grade 2). They don't understand why it is not acceptable to say and do these things.
I'm not saying that McKinnon should get away with what he did, because he shouldn't. But saying that his illness should not be taken into account is absurd and inhumane.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone who was diagnosed by a professional(several in fact), I can confirm that as a kid I did not have a single clue regarding right or wrong except where it pertained to getting caught. Quite frankly it took till my early 20's before I really developed a moral code of my own.
Re: (Score:2)
Mad Parent Up! (Score:3, Interesting)
My mother is in a very similar situation as you, she teaches children with aspergers and autism. I grew around children of all ages 5-19 that had these issues. Some of them were much worse than others but many of them definitely didn't understand right and wrong, at least not in the way you and I do.
I don't know much about the merit's of this case but if what I understand is that he wasn't malicious and actually tried to help the admins out by leaving them notes on how to fix things then this is certainly
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It does not appear that this guy is insane. He's just a moron. He should be tried, and if found guilty, the court should take his stupidity and intent into consideration when sentencing. Because he was an idiot rather than a spy or saboteur, he will likely get a light sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Citing Asperger's as a medical condition to prevent extradition is silly.
Well, then, it would be very appropriate in a exceedingly silly extradition request, don't you think?
US wants to lock him up for point out our password (Score:2)
US wants to lock him up for pointing out our blank password mess.
This seem to be about making him a political prisoner!
Re:US wants to lock him up for point out our passw (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:US wants to lock him up for point out our passw (Score:4, Funny)
He says he found clear evidence of UFO encounters (256 MB photos from the ISS clearly showing UFOs), and NASA documents detailing the reverse engineering of free energy reactors, but he was so excited and stoned that he forgot to save them to his computer.
I dunno why, but that sentence has got to be one of the most hilarious things I've ever read in my life.
-1, troll (Score:2)
Obviously, the proper reward for such civic-minded behavior is to lock him in a cage with killers and rapists.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is just doing things by the book.
In general the law is interpreted so that the actual intent of the law is considered. In my (rather uninformed) opinion this is a classic case of bureaucrats enforcing the letter of the law to cover their own failures.
Re: (Score:2)
Your facts are wrong. The "general law" applies regardless of intent.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The intent of cybercrime law is to prohibit unauthorized computer access. This was unauthorized computer access.
Re: (Score:2)
And the proper place to do these interpretations and considerations is at his trial, which he needs to attend.
Re: (Score:2)
... in the UK
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no kidding. But at this point we have already passed the investigation, decision to prosecute, and federal grand jury stages. He has been indicted. The only thing left is trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of.
Intent matters for how severe the crime is, but intent doesn't generally turn a crime into a non-crime. To take this to an extreme, intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. The difference between them is intent, yes, but both are still crimes. You won't get out of a trial by saying you had no intent to cause harm. You might be found innocent of the harder crimes if the jury/judge believes you, but intending no harm doesn't make everything okay...what you *did* still matters.
In
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The intent of the law is to prohibit unauthorized computer access to computers.
If accessing unsecured computers over the internet is a national security risk then you're doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, answer the question I asked originally.
What, exactly, do you think the intent of the law is?
The intent of the law is to prohibit unauthorized computer access to computers.
Did you get it this time?
And yet... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Identifying blank passwords as a problem makes him a lot more qualified than the people the feds have been hiring!
Scapegoat and Prestige? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Asperger's, you never cease to amaze me. Somehow used as a sign of genius amongst hackers while at the same time being reason you should have charges dropped.
That's the genius of it!
Then why (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Then why (Score:4, Insightful)
Scenario 1: Obama shows leniency; McKinnon admits guilt and Obama pardons him. That shows weakness and would be ample fodder for his detractors.
Secnario 2: Obama gets up in arms about it and pursues extradition. It makes him look anti-British.
It's on the UK to fight extradition using whatever weapons are at their disposal, be it political capital or UK procedures of extradition. McKinnon's case couldn't really be more inconsequential to high-up US authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
McKinnon's case couldn't really be more inconsequential to high-up US authorities.
Sadly it would seem pretty inconsequential to British authorities also. They seem to have no interest at all in fighting this extradition.
Re: (Score:2)
is the US Government trying to force the British Prime Minister to intervene in the Scottish courts over Meghrabi?
Because Meghrabi is the person who an international court found to be responsible for a plane bombing that killed 189 Americans (and 270 human beings in total)? And Meghrabi was recently released on erroneous health problems and living like a national hero in Libya?
On the other hand, McKinnon's guilty of social hacking and getting access to some NASA machines he shouldn't have had access to? And also maybe guilty of being a certifiable nutjob?
Can you spot the difference? And understand why one
Interference in another country's laws (Score:4, Insightful)
. I do hope that you realise that you are libelling a number of Scottish doctors, as you have no evidence for that statement - many cancers do have unexpected periods of remission. Meghrabi was convicted under Scottish law - not by an International Court - and was also released under Scottish law - which, by the way, Cameron cannot legally interfere with, as it is separate from the English legal system.
You may not like Scottish law. I personally consider aspects of US Law, like your constant reference to an 18th century document to deal with 21st century issues, to be laughable. But if someone is tried, convicted and dealt with under sovereign Scottish law, US politicians have no business whatever interfering. The McKinnon case, similarly, is one of someone who should have been dealt with under English law - but the US interfered.
However, my basic point is that pissing off a new Prime Minister is likely to be counterproductive in the long term. Your failure to understand this seems to be shared by a large number of your countrymen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do hope that you realise that you are libelling a number of Scottish doctors, as you have no evidence for that statement - many cancers do have unexpected periods of remission.
I can't help it if the doctors don't understand long tail statistics or if they can't understand giving percent confidences on time spans. They gave this man three months to live over one year ago. If you are saying it's libelous for me to call them out on an error on their part then I guess I don't mind being called libelous.
Meghrabi was convicted under Scottish law - not by an International Court
The court itself was in the Netherlands [wikipedia.org]. How is that not an international court?!
- and was also released under Scottish law - which, by the way, Cameron cannot legally interfere with, as it is separate from the English legal system.
What on Earth are you talking about? Scotland is part of the UK. David Cameron is the UK Prime Min
Re:Interference in another country's laws (Score:4, Informative)
The court itself was in the Netherlands [wikipedia.org]. How is that not an international court?!
The trial was held under Scottish law. That was part of the compromise that led to him being handed over in the first place. The physical location of the court, in this instance, is irrelevant.
- and was also released under Scottish law - which, by the way, Cameron cannot legally interfere with, as it is separate from the English legal system.
What on Earth are you talking about? Scotland is part of the UK. David Cameron is the UK Prime Minister. And you're telling me he has no grounds to interfere? I must seriously be missing something here.
You are missing something. Scotland has a separate legal system from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The continuance of the legal system was one of the conditions of the Act of Union in 1707. As the UK PM, David Cameron cannot directly interfere with decisions of the Scottish courts. He can't interfere by proposing Scottish laws either, since that power is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Since this is criminal law, the new Supreme Court of the UK does not have jurisdiction either.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally consider aspects of US Law, like your constant reference to an 18th century document to deal with 21st century issues, to be laughable.
That "18th century document" is the only thing giving the United States federal government any legal standing whatsoever. Without it they have plenty of practical power but no legitimacy. Ergo, it has significant bearing on every aspect of U.S. law. Its age is irrelevant.
Government is force. That is its sole purpose. It is quite possibly the most dangerous thing there is in modern society, more insidius than organized crime, more deadly than terrorism, and potentially more disruptive than a full-scale forei
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Meghrabi killed hundreds of people, and the Scottish government fucked up his punishment. That's worthy of the President's attention.
This dope hacked into some computers and nobody got killed. It's not worthy of the President's time to dick around in the legal filigree on this. At the point where it's no longer mechanistic and it seems the British government is fucking with America over the case, then it may be necessary to make a formal request from the White House to straighten it out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, it was a UK court (albeit in Scotland) which freed Meghrabi on the basis of what now appears to be a faulty medical diagnosis. So much for only having months to live.
You should also know that there is considerable speculation in the US of pleas on his behalf by British Petroleum as part of some deal with Libya to benefit BP. Whether that is true or not, BP is not particularly popular in the US right now after the little mess in the Gulf of Mexico.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no intervening. You already let that convicted mass murderer go free to his homeland. What you are referring to is the US' discovery of that abhorrent action, and inherent need to find the truth of the matter.
Somehow I doubt that you would have been happier had his conviction been overturned on appeal, which had every chance of happening if hadn't been released on compassionate grounds. If there was any dodgy deals done, it was because that would have been a huge political embarrassment.
More important (Score:5, Funny)
Interesting that this becomes all about McKinnon. What about the fact that he uncovered the fact that the military is running an alternate space program completely "off the books" and has hundreds of troops serving "off-planet"? Maybe one of the reasons NASA is being cut back is because the real activity is happening by the military, using their "black" budget.
People with Asperger's are not known for their ability to dissemble and come up with fanciful stories. In fact, one quality that comes up time and time again in descriptions of Asperger's sufferers is that they are unable to tell the "little white lies" that most of us tell every day in order to socialize. When meeting someone, someone with Asperger's is liable to say "You're fat!" or "You're ugly" when meeting someone, well, fat or ugly.
McKinnon found evidence of what might be a military base in outer space, but everyone wants to focus on this little legal ping-pong between the US and the UK.
Excuse me now, I have to get back to Above Top Secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he was viewing our historical documentaries. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What makes this case so ridiculous is that the symptoms he describes are not those of Asperger's syndrome--they are classic symptoms of schizophrenia or paranoid personality disorder.
Obama should invite McKinnon (Score:4, Funny)
To the White House for a beer.
Can't Intervene? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to figure this out too. How does Obama have any say in what happens to this guy?
One view (Score:3, Interesting)
[sarcasm] Of course, this has NOTHING to do with making the US military etc. look like a bunch of idiots when it comes to cyber security.
To make up for their embarrassment they wouldn't DREAM of taking it out on some dodgy hacker that made them look like n00bs. [sarcasm = off]
The US authorities are stamping their collective feet like self-entitled 3rd graders, trying desperately to deflect any criticism of their woeful security practices.
This whole affair may have something to do with a one-sided extradition treaty with the UK that meant that USA could just about say "we want that person to be extradited", with no prima facie case & the UK had little say in the matter.
However the same did not apply with the UK wanting US citizens extradited to the UK.Can we say "one law for the Americans & another for the rest of the world?
Naturally, this law was enacted under the stewardship of the well-known Bush poodle called Blair. Surprising, huh?
Reciprocality (Score:3, Interesting)