Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime United Kingdom United States News Your Rights Online

MacKinnon Extradition Blocked By UK Home Secretary 258

Posted by timothy
from the assange-lite dept.
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.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MacKinnon Extradition Blocked By UK Home Secretary

Comments Filter:
  • by Local ID10T (790134) <ID10T.L.USER@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 16, 2012 @08:49AM (#41667733) Homepage

    Even a stopped clock gets it right twice a day.

    • by alexo (9335)

      Even a stopped clock gets it right twice a day.

      Still living in the analog era, I see.

      • by compro01 (777531)

        A clock flashing 12:00 is also right twice a day, assuming it doesn't differentiate AM/PM.

    • We haven't bothered resetting our microwave clock, so it says "-:--"

  • 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 wa

    • Re:A good decision (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jrumney (197329) on Tuesday October 16, 2012 @09:49AM (#41668363) Homepage

      After what happened to Abu Hamza and friends

      Probably more so the "and friends", two of whom appear to have been doing nothing more than running a website providing information, something I was under the mistaken impression that the US defends vigorously as free speech, even when it is bigotted speech full of hatred. Hamza himself does appear to have been directly involved in crimes physically committed on American soil, so extradition is appropriate in his case. The remaining two friends are accused of involvement in attacks on the US embassy in Yemen, which is slightly more dubious, but still as physical attacks, and given that there is no reasonable expectation that Yemen will pursue appropriate prosecution, I don't think any comparison to MacKinnon's case is justified.

  • USA - Average Joe (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ciderbrew (1860166) on Tuesday October 16, 2012 @08:53AM (#41667773)
    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.
    • by isorox (205688)

      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.

      This is an unusual case, which has found most of us "liberals" on the same side as the BNP and Daily Mail.

      • ohh - I don't like that idea, best send him over ASAP. Hmm, and bring Mr Hamza back with an apology, a pay off and a big house in Kensington.
  • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Tuesday October 16, 2012 @08:54AM (#41667785) Journal

    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.

    • by dbIII (701233)
      Yes the suicide risk is important, since you don't really want someone to die just because an example is wanted to show punishment will be handed out to minor trespassers.
      This has all been an enormous waste of time for a crime that is more petty then minor shoplifting.
      As said above (and in many other similar cases eg. the ones listed in Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown"), the "damage" cannot be honestly quantified in the amounts claimed. It's funny how perjury doesn't apply to such wild claims from t
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16, 2012 @08:58AM (#41667819)

    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.

    • by N1AK (864906) on Tuesday October 16, 2012 @09:12AM (#41667979) Homepage
      Given the timing I can't help but feel we gave them Abu Hamza and the other 4 'terror' suspects in return for them letting this go without a major fuss. That both your premise and mine both are based on the assumption that actual human rights and morality were largely irrelevant says something about our countries politics.
      • Given the timing I can't help but feel we gave them Abu Hamza and the other 4 'terror' suspects in return for them letting this go without a major fuss. That both your premise and mine both are based on the assumption that actual human rights and morality were largely irrelevant says something about our countries politics.

        I have to confess that, while I don't think Gary McKinnon should be extradited to the US to face trial for an alleged offence committed in England, I can't help suspecting that the 'medical condition' which he has which gave rise to this decision was 'white skin syndrome'.

  • 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
    • by dbIII (701233)
      They really don't want a death on their hands over a petty trespasser being made an example of to divert attention from the idiots that refused to do their jobs and padlock the gate. That would be counterproductive and draw attention to him just being a handy scapegoat for poor practices and not the master criminal that is alleged.
  • I figure most Brits will be for this, even if it's just for them sticking it to the US.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Whoah, the British finally found some amount of courage ? Who knew, who knew. Maybe there's hope after all.

    • by 91degrees (207121)
      It's not really courageous of this minister though. When the right wing and the left wing press are arguing for something, mixed with public pressure from a lot of tech-savvy people (who are actually pretty well organised for an ad-hoc collective), it requires more courage to say no to them than the US.
  • 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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16, 2012 @09:51AM (#41668387)

    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.

  • 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. Fin

    • by SleazyRidr (1563649) on Tuesday October 16, 2012 @12:13PM (#41670019)

      Simple sentence, community service and supervised internet access until he can prove he won't be acting like an ass again.

      Actually this is pretty much what he's asking for. He wants to be tried in the UK (as he was a UK citizen commiting the "crime" in the UK.) The authorities want to ship him to the US where he would face 60 years in jail, which is a ridiculous sentence for anyone.

    • 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 exi

  • The US can go pound sand.

Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong. - Oscar Wilde

Working...