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:Asperger's (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:1, 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.
I prefer to pass judgments, perform jury duties, and play executioner as often as possible. I find these activities benefit my society greatly, especially if they can be done before the actual court case transpires.
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, Insightful)
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: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:Asperger's (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course he should stand trial. In the UK.
Re:US wants to lock him up for point out our passw (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Then why (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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Asperger's (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?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Asperger's (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:Interference in another country's laws (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 Minister. And you're telling me he has no grounds to interfere? I must seriously be missing something here.
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.
So you're saying that none of your laws are from the 18th century? What does that even have to do with any of what we're talking about?
But if someone is tried, convicted and dealt with under sovereign Scottish law, US politicians have no business whatever interfering.
Well, let it be known that you may think I'm some dumb yank from the states but you've convinced me that Scotland has made a mockery of justice. I sincerely hope that if anything like this happens again we demand extradition instead of letting a man you found guilty of taking 270 lives walk free. And one year later he's still alive in his home country.
That's not justice and I hope you take the time to consider the families of those 270 victims when you chastise me for having laws intact and based off of an 18th century document--which somehow validates your Compassion Laws. Where's your compassion for the victims?
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.
I don't care what a new PM thinks. 270 people died and deserve justice. That supersedes any of your political bullshit. I've met only a handful of Scottish people and loved them all but interacting with you makes me think twice of that.
Re:Asperger's (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:Asperger's (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: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.
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)
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: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:More important (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.
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?
Re:Asperger's (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet a lot of the "incidentals" included in the cost did include re-securing the system. Just like you said - changing the passwords, updating the software, etc. Guess what - none of this is his damage. Instead, things like changing the passwords is fixing the screwups made by sys admins in the first place - and they are pinning this on McKinnon instead of admitting that they screwed up.
Not to condone his behavior - but the costs of changing the passwords is not his damage
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Asperger's (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 did was use remote access to various systems that mostly had the default password set. Calling that "cracking" is akin to calling someone who can cut a pack of cards a card sharp! If he did find any passwords that weren't the default setting I'd suggest that "guessing" would be a better word that cracking!
If he did more then the US should prove it, but AFAIK they've just said "Hey, we're The US-of-A and we want you to give us one of your people because he made us look like a bunch of amateurs and we're trying to save face".
Re:Knee jerk. (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 accusations laid against him indicate government fabrications. If NASA can't even make honest accusations when they have him dead to rights, then this indicates a preparedness to lie as a general feature of their operations. So. . , maybe.
The Asperger's syndrome bit is his defense, not a Government accusation. As for the persecution, he's making some very grand statements with no backing. In short, he's presenting a fiction as earth-shattering truth and expects that the public should follow along without the extraordinary proof that should accompany such claims. Little wonder the public has balked, even openly ridiculed the man.
He's making a defense which might give him the ability to avoid being jailed for sixty years in a foreign country. I'd do it too. That's not the point. The point is how it's spun. Look at the results; when it comes to the media, one must measure the final results, they are how to measure the effectiveness of the programming of the public mind. For instance, look at your own comments regarding, "Extraordinary Proof". What does that even mean? What's wrong with just regular, "Proof"? Why does proof of aliens need to have an emotional component added to it? Answer: It doesn't. That's mind programming via media again, because it sure wasn't YOUR idea. You heard it somewhere and you are repeating it without thinking it through. The manner through which it got into your head may seem entirely innocent, but the results demonstrate the intent which carried it.
Oh! A perfect opportunity for you to use the term "sheeple" and you missed it. Maybe next time.
I prefer not to repeat canned terminology. If I do that too much, I find I stop thinking and simply start spouting dogma.
Seriously though, if you're one of the "I want to believe" crowd, then you really should be supplementing that with "I need proof." Otherwise you'll be victim to any fiction that falls in line with your personal desire (herd response indeed).
I don't want to believe anything. I want to accumulate knowledge and learn to recognize patterns. There is a ton of UFO information available, provided by clear-eyed researchers. There is a ton of other material available as well from other areas of resarch. I've taken the time to wade through a lot of it, and when one cross references and cancels out the crap, there is a signal to be found. A strong one.
Gary McKinnon strikes me as an earnest man whose story fits the pattern. He may be inventing things and he is probably seeing through personal filters, (he claims that anti-gravity tech will become public domain in a few years. I disagree and think that this indicates wishful thinking on his part), but for the most part, he doesn't strike me as being too far off. But there is no proof here; just pattern. That's all I can say with certainty. -That, and the government is very corrupt, and while it contains earnest