An anonymous reader writes "The BBC has published a very good profile of Gary McKinnon. It discusses his motives and methods as well as raising the question as to whether he is a malicious 'hacker' or whether he was simply obsessed with finding info about UFOs and should be praised for finding security faults in what should be extremely secure systems. This should provided stimulus for some interesting discussion on Slashdot especially between us Brits and our American friends following the confirmation of his extradition to the USA."
There is also a huge difference between the intent and the application of the extradition treaty between the UK and the US - AFAIK the US still hasn't ratified that treaty, so it's fine for US courts to extradite British citizens, but not vice-versa.
The intent of the extradition treaty was to deal with serious organised crime and terrorism cases.
McKinnon comes under neither heading, nor did the NatWest employees extradited for shenanigans over Enron.
Britain should drop this treaty immediately, and refuse any extradition request other than for terrorist crimes.
Please, America, take Abu Hamza and his friends, but a guy that has Aspergers, believes in UFOs?
He's our eccentric, so if he's due a trial we'll do it here.
Not so much an excuse, its more like the way people in power need to think to maintain power. Unfortunately people who seek power over others, don't want people to stand against their point of view. Almost by definition, the ones in power (in every country) seek to have the power to dictate terms and control everyone they rule over. So any attempt to oppose their point of view, can be interpreted as wrong by them, but now they have this fear filled terror label under which they can label anything which could oppose their point of view and so can (and do) use it to stop any attempt to oppose their point of view.
What I also find very disturbing about this case is how they are trying to use Aspergers as some kind of defense. I find it extremely insulting to Aspergers to be treated somehow inferior. Most Aspergers would leave most of the sheep like people in this world standing for their intelligence But the capacity to learn isn't the same as having learned something already. Also just because someone has the capacity to learn, doesn't mean they have used their ability to learn to the full. This hacker has shown he has not thought through the full implications of what he was said to be doing. He is very misguided to think he can just look around military computers to find UFO evidence or any evidence. However being an Asperger is not a defense. If anything it should undermine his defense. So his defense team are "clutching at straws" so to speak, to hope Aspergers can become a defense for failing to think something through.
His defence team would do better to point out how this case is already decided in the press. The press seem to be helping to condemn him before he goes to trial, by constantly highlighting the apparent scale of what he is said to have done.
Dude, you're missing the point -- the intention has everything to do with it.
Legally, intention makes all the difference as to what you can be convicted of.
In the UK we have charges of Murder and Manslaughter. One of the key differences is whether you intended to do it or not.
Most other charges have similar levels of distinction: some that merely require proof that you did it; others that require proof of intent to secure a conviction.
So whether he intended to do it is very relevant -- not necessarily to whether to convict him, but certainly what to convict him of.
And my understanding is that the lesser charge, (ie the one without the requirement of intent, to which he freely admits) is not sufficient grounds for extradition, whereas the higher charge is. That's why it matters whether he meant to cause harm or not.
If you read the linked-to article (the last one), you'll see this:
The authorities have warned that without his co-operation and a guilty plea the case could be treated as terrorism and he could face a long jail sentence.
They're already threatening to treat it as terrorism.
Not exactly; as I understand it, they're saying that if he pleads guilty as part of a plea bargain they'll go easier on him. If he contests it, they'll throw the book at him.
I've never understood that aspect of the US criminal justice system; it smacks somewhat of deliberate intimidation - "make it easy on yourself, confess - or else...".
Wow, they managed to murder innocent women and children, but no adult males? That's pretty impressive stuff.
Perhaps the US just kept them to learn the secrets of their amazingly selective bombing techniques?
Joking aside, I also find the whole US attitude to terrorism pretty hypocritical, considering they are known for having funded a few terrorist organisations when it suits their goals. They didn't give a toss about the IRA repeatedly bombing us, but they go and invade whole other countries as retribution for one single terrorist attack against them. Some crazy guy hacking a website is extradited to the US, but the murderers of innocent women, children and adult males are protected. That is truly sickening.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday August 29 2008, @03:59AM (#24791587)
Especially terrorists should not be extradited to the US, because the US has a record of grave human rights violations against suspected terrorists and has been convicted of torturing prisoners.
"We conclude that, given the clear differences in definition, the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture, and we recommend that the Government does not rely on such assurances in the future."
This means that for terrorism crimes, it's very likely that extradition requests to the U.S. will have to be denied, since the U.S. carries out activities that the U.K. considers torture. And a "no-torture" guarantee is worthless, since the U.S. doesn't consider the acts as torture in the first place. At a minimum, expect this issue to be brought up in legal challenges to extradition.
>Even with known PIRA terrorists
But they're not terrorists, they're just good citizens fighting the oppressors. Oh, hang on, that's what all the other ones say they are too. Hmm...
On 30 September 2006 the US Senate unanimously ratified the treaty.source [wikipedia.org]
Of course, I would like to see the UK extradite a U.S. business man (Ian Norris, Morgan Crucible), or even an internet pirate (Hew Raymond Griffiths, DrinkOrDie). I imagine many people would claim such a thing to be unconstitutional - the alternative, that any crime committed in a globalised post-internet world can be prosecuted by any extradition treaty nation, regardless of the laws of the nation in which the defendant actually resi
There is also a very big difference between noticing the fault, stepping the hell away from the keyboard and thinking long and hard about how best to inform the relevant people (if at all in these ultra-paranoid, litigation-happy times), and exploiting the fault to poke around and see what information you can find.
I in no way condone the extradition or the heavy-handed way in which the US authorities appear to be conducting things, but no, he should not be praised.
He stole brains of the military, FBI staff and even of the President of the US? Over the interweb? By deleting files?
Prosecutors say he altered and deleted files at a naval air station not long after the 11 September attacks in 2001, rendering critical systems inoperable.
It's more that it indicates to us all that the security of the computer systems in many places are way too weak.
If they had sufficient security measures they would just have recognized that there was an attempt in just the same mood that we recognize that it rains. "OK, it rains, time to close the windows."
And if a defense organization is cracked, what does this tell us about how easy it is to crack commercial systems? Some hobbyists probably have better security!
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday August 29 2008, @03:22AM (#24791367)
The UK, as a seperate entity from the US, no longer exists.
If US laws can be enforced on British soil, but not vice-versa, then the UK is a defacto part of the US. But here's the clinching shit in your mouth: with no representation. What's the point of a government, if the laws they pass mean nothing?
It would be part of the US if laws could be enforced mutually. Being unilateral, it means nothing less than being a colony. When your laws trump local laws without the ones being overruled having any way to appeal, it fits quite neatly.
Well, that's obviously way off base because I'm sure the extradition treaty goes both ways
You would think so, wouldn't you? Apparently American citizens have something called 'rights', which means they cannot be extradited without the evidence against them being put before an American court. So Congress have not ratified the treaty. It only goes one way: we bend over, and get no reach-around.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday August 29 2008, @03:49AM (#24791533)
because I'm sure the extradition treaty goes both ways
This gets discussed [slashdot.org] every time this story comes up: no it doesn't go both ways. The UK has asked for the extradition of people from the US on charges of murder and have been refused. When it's the other way around, but is just some nutter that guessed the Pentagon's admin passwords were password or some stupidity, the Brit is passed straight over. Also the actual treaty itself is one-sided [slashdot.org]: the US doesn't have to provide proof to have someone extradited, but the UK does. The treaty is not constitutional in either country.
I'd whole heartedly welcome the UK as our 51st state. You want in?:)
Am assuming this is a rhetorical question. Anyway, I don't have anything the average American, it's just the UK and US governments actions make my blood boil, as a Slashdot reader I can see I'm not alone.:)
Gary McKinnon was foolish. Yet he now faces up to 70 years in jail.
What angers me even more than the absurd penalties threatened by the US courts? The supine, wimpering acquiesence of the UK governmnt who will extradite one of its own citizens without evidence being required, yet demands no such reciprocal agreement with the US.
Mr McKinnon should burn his British passport and go away from the UK to some country which still cares for its citizens.
Hear, hear.
I find it a disgrace that countries like UK and my own country (Netherlands) extradite their own citizens to a country with cowboy-law.
The US will not extradite their own citizens; they have even promised to invade countries that hold american citizens (International Court of Justice).
The US have not just promised to invade The Hague, they have turned it into a law: http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/08/aspa080302.htm [hrw.org]. I wonder what NATO would do if the US ever invaded the Netherlands.
McKinnon shouldn't bother moving to Canada...at least not for a few more months. Our Prime Minister has his nose so far up Bush's ass he knows what Bush is eating for breakfast.
I think we need to hold an international "Throw Out The Fascists Day". It would be celebrated whenever some democratic country comes to its senses and votes the bastards out of office in favour of somebody who remembers what civil liberties are, and why they're more important than security.
``or [...] should be praised for finding security faults in what should be extremely secure systems.''
That one is really easy. Finding said security flaws is an accomplishment, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is what you do once you find them. You get praise for actions that lead to improved security (reporting them to the vendor, fixing them, reporting them to users, etc.). You get condemnation for exploiting them for selfish goals. Same as always: do something for the common good? Praise on you. Screw someone over for your own advantage? Damnation on you.
"It wasn't just an interest in little green men and flying saucers," said Mr McKinnon. "I believe that there are spacecraft, or there have been craft, flying around that the public doesn't know about."
Mr McKinnon further explained that he believes the US military has reverse engineered an anti-gravity propulsion system from recovered alien spacecraft, and that this propulsion system is being kept a secret.
In that sense, Mr McKinnon said he sees his own hacking as "humanitarian." He said he only wanted to find evidence of a UFO cover-up and expose it. He called the alleged anti-gravity propulsion system "extra-terrestrial technology we should have access to".
With that type of excuse, one could get away with almost anything short of violently assaulting people in public, don't you think?
As for his quest to find evidence of a UFO cover-up, Mr McKinnon has said that he found some circumstantial evidence online to back his claims, including what he said are photos with what he speculated were alien spacecraft airbrushed out of the picture. He said the photos in question were too large to download to his own computer.
So he somehow managed to SEE the photos (without any alien spacecraft on them, BTW), but wasn't able to download them? Am I the only one to whom this doesn't make sense?
It's called perspective. He could see the pictures when they were far away because that makes them much smaller. But if they were downloaded onto his own computer they would be much closer, and therefore too big for it.
I use this same principle to cache the entire internet on a USB key that I keep on the moon.
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday August 29 2008, @04:01AM (#24791601)
...is something you don't have.
1. Saying he was "just" obsessed with finding about UFOs is a thinly veiled attempt at making an unnecessary end justify the means. If you or your buddies have found a UFO, good for you, but information does not "want" to be anthropomorphised, and you can't just raid other people's stuff to satisfy your curiosity.
2. It's unlikely anyway. I've mixed in UFO/remote viewing circles thanks to a few obsessive buddies, and while "the government's hiding something" seems to be standard rhetoric, the hobby is empty of people carefully planning cracking raids to get it. It would be counter-productive to make enemies of the people you want to be more open.
The at-all-costs nutjob does not have the clarity of thought to do what McKinnon did, though congratulations for building the foundations for a failed insanity/naivete defence. Why don't you just give him blonde pigtails and a lollypop and tell him to say "oh wittle me, no Sir I had no idea that sweetie wasn't mine".
3. It's probable that he did something that neither side want to put out in the open.
4. But there's more than enough evidence for an extradition among merely what both sides agree happened.
5. No, "hackers", finding breakable security and breaking it is not a pastime that justifies itself. When you're happy not reacting to my regularly cutting the windows and defeating the locks of you and your most vulnerable family member so I can leaving a note saying "I just wanted to see what you look like - and show you how easy it is so you can stop me from doing it again" then at least you'll be consistent.
Everyone's personal security and privacy can be defeated eventually, including yours, and there's always someone smarter than you who can defeat it. If it hasn't happened to you already, it's not because you're an impenetrable leet haxor, it's because you're inconsequential. And if you ever become otherwise, good luck on that "Thanks for the help and implicit security advice! Look forward to more of your work" note you'll have to write to your intruder.
"But there's more than enough evidence for an extradition..."
How do you know? The US courts have presented none, and the UK government has demanded none. Yet off to the US he will be sent.
One of the cornerstones of justice in developed countries has, until recently, been the concept of evidence being required, and to be presented in open court. However that concept seems to be falling out of fashion, to be replaced with a new idea of: "Fuck you. You're guilty. 'Cos we say so."
by Anonymous Coward
on Friday August 29 2008, @04:08AM (#24791645)
Unfortunately, our former PM, the worlds worst negotiator, Tony Blair went and signed a bilateral extradition treaty with the US (the one which removes the burden of providing any evidence before extraditing) When the US refused to sign their copy of the treaty he just let it ride.
I think his best chance of defense rests on whether or not this claim is true...
It says his hacking caused some $700,000 dollars damage to government systems.
What's more, they allege that Mr McKinnon altered and deleted files at a US Naval Air Station not long after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and that the attack rendered critical systems inoperable.
The US government also says Mr McKinnon once took down an entire network of 2,000 US Army computers. His goal, they claim, was to access classified information.
Only he knows if this is fact or fiction. If true (and they can prove it) then he's sunk and deserves everything he gets. But if it's not true then the chances are the US Govt are trying to blame him for the (supposed) $700,000 cost of securing systems that should have been tighter than a duck's back-side in the first place.
How much of this is truth, and how much is it a "cover your ass" exercise by the US Military to distract from their own incompetance?
.... the 800-pound gorilla in the room. i.e.: the types of intrusions and attacks that seem to be committed on a daily basis by what appears to be government-sanctioned Chinese hacker groups.
But in truth, I find it remarkable that the US government is not owning up to the fact that it also seems to be running what amounts to basically insecure systems on much of its IT infrastructure.
This dude may have been a crackpot, but somehow these antics are only performed for the sake of overreaction, when the blame should also be squarely shared by those who administer these networks.
As a US taxpayer, I find this last part infinitely scarier... especially because all of this saber-rattling is not likely to remedy the conditions that made it possible to do this in the first place. A recent security audit of US Gov networks gave them an 'F' if I remember (could be wrong)
And one thing that never gets discussed is what he claims he found. Which is modest enough (despite all the hours he put into the search) to sound almost plausible, and weird enough to be interesting: two folders of identically titled satellite photos, one folder of which was titled "unretouched". And a spreadsheet of names and ranks titled "non-terrestrial officers."
interview is long and the interviewer is an annoying UFO over-enthusiast, but Gary is actually pretty articulate and compelling. It's here [projectcamelot.org] if you're interested.
Probably some kid that tries to get some attention, and thinks that he will get it, but by posting as an AC he won't ever get the infamous OMG Ponies styling of/. which I think is rather cute!
Just ignore him - he'll get tired of it or end up as cannon fodder somewhere.
Well, that site appears to be owned by michaelmiller@gmail.com . Wonder if that's his real name, and if he ever gets unwelcome visitors round at his place.. I hope so!
I read it, and I have to admit that I don't see anything particularly funny about the incessant racist, antisemitic and homophobic jokes! In certain sarcastic contexts that can be funny, but when people mean it, it's just sad.
That the term "hacker" be henceforth replaced by the term "fucker".
Yes, it may still lead to unforeseen consequences for the fucker when laymen (and women) star using the term without proper understanding of it, but isn't that exactly what the fucker community really needs?
How about we give it up already and just forego the use of the term hacker meaning good computer nerd?
I've been arguing that for years, especially as in my experience in the UK, a hack most certainly is not a clever piece of code; the image presented is of someone making a mess of it, much like hacking through the undergrowth with a machete.
Besides which, you should attempt to target your language at the intended audience, and on a site like BBC News that most certainly is not the 5% of the population who know about the other use of the word.
Should he be praised (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Interesting)
Governments and quite some companies disagree.
Parent
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Insightful)
There is also a huge difference between the intent and the application of the extradition treaty between the UK and the US - AFAIK the US still hasn't ratified that treaty, so it's fine for US courts to extradite British citizens, but not vice-versa.
The intent of the extradition treaty was to deal with serious organised crime and terrorism cases.
McKinnon comes under neither heading, nor did the NatWest employees extradited for shenanigans over Enron.
Britain should drop this treaty immediately, and refuse any extradition request other than for terrorist crimes.
Please, America, take Abu Hamza and his friends, but a guy that has Aspergers, believes in UFOs?
He's our eccentric, so if he's due a trial we'll do it here.
Parent
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Insightful)
Even at that, they'd just mention he "hacked" military computers and that is terrorism. Nearly everything is these days.
Parent
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything is terrrrrism if it gives our governments an excuse for doing something that would otherwise be considered unthinkable.
Parent
Aspergers is not a defence (Score:5, Interesting)
Not so much an excuse, its more like the way people in power need to think to maintain power. Unfortunately people who seek power over others, don't want people to stand against their point of view. Almost by definition, the ones in power (in every country) seek to have the power to dictate terms and control everyone they rule over. So any attempt to oppose their point of view, can be interpreted as wrong by them, but now they have this fear filled terror label under which they can label anything which could oppose their point of view and so can (and do) use it to stop any attempt to oppose their point of view.
What I also find very disturbing about this case is how they are trying to use Aspergers as some kind of defense. I find it extremely insulting to Aspergers to be treated somehow inferior. Most Aspergers would leave most of the sheep like people in this world standing for their intelligence But the capacity to learn isn't the same as having learned something already. Also just because someone has the capacity to learn, doesn't mean they have used their ability to learn to the full. This hacker has shown he has not thought through the full implications of what he was said to be doing. He is very misguided to think he can just look around military computers to find UFO evidence or any evidence. However being an Asperger is not a defense. If anything it should undermine his defense. So his defense team are "clutching at straws" so to speak, to hope Aspergers can become a defense for failing to think something through.
His defence team would do better to point out how this case is already decided in the press. The press seem to be helping to condemn him before he goes to trial, by constantly highlighting the apparent scale of what he is said to have done.
Parent
Re:Aspergers is not a defence (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, you're missing the point -- the intention has everything to do with it.
Legally, intention makes all the difference as to what you can be convicted of.
In the UK we have charges of Murder and Manslaughter. One of the key differences is whether you intended to do it or not.
Most other charges have similar levels of distinction: some that merely require proof that you did it; others that require proof of intent to secure a conviction.
So whether he intended to do it is very relevant -- not necessarily to whether to convict him, but certainly what to convict him of.
And my understanding is that the lesser charge, (ie the one without the requirement of intent, to which he freely admits) is not sufficient grounds for extradition, whereas the higher charge is. That's why it matters whether he meant to cause harm or not.
Parent
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the linked-to article (the last one), you'll see this:
They're already threatening to treat it as terrorism.
Parent
Re:Should he be praised (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly; as I understand it, they're saying that if he pleads guilty as part of a plea bargain they'll go easier on him. If he contests it, they'll throw the book at him.
I've never understood that aspect of the US criminal justice system; it smacks somewhat of deliberate intimidation - "make it easy on yourself, confess - or else...".
Parent
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, they managed to murder innocent women and children, but no adult males? That's pretty impressive stuff.
Perhaps the US just kept them to learn the secrets of their amazingly selective bombing techniques?
Joking aside, I also find the whole US attitude to terrorism pretty hypocritical, considering they are known for having funded a few terrorist organisations when it suits their goals. They didn't give a toss about the IRA repeatedly bombing us, but they go and invade whole other countries as retribution for one single terrorist attack against them. Some crazy guy hacking a website is extradited to the US, but the murderers of innocent women, children and adult males are protected. That is truly sickening.
Parent
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially terrorists should not be extradited to the US, because the US has a record of grave human rights violations against suspected terrorists and has been convicted of torturing prisoners.
Parent
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Interesting)
This means that for terrorism crimes, it's very likely that extradition requests to the U.S. will have to be denied, since the U.S. carries out activities that the U.K. considers torture. And a "no-torture" guarantee is worthless, since the U.S. doesn't consider the acts as torture in the first place. At a minimum, expect this issue to be brought up in legal challenges to extradition.
Parent
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Informative)
The treaty is contained in this act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
The UK has handed over terorists, hackers and fraudsters, yet the US is yet to do the same, Even with known PIRA terrorists.
Parent
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Insightful)
But they're not terrorists, they're just good citizens fighting the oppressors. Oh, hang on, that's what all the other ones say they are too. Hmm...
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, I would like to see the UK extradite a U.S. business man (Ian Norris, Morgan Crucible), or even an internet pirate (Hew Raymond Griffiths, DrinkOrDie). I imagine many people would claim such a thing to be unconstitutional - the alternative, that any crime committed in a globalised post-internet world can be prosecuted by any extradition treaty nation, regardless of the laws of the nation in which the defendant actually resi
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Insightful)
There is also a very big difference between noticing the fault, stepping the hell away from the keyboard and thinking long and hard about how best to inform the relevant people (if at all in these ultra-paranoid, litigation-happy times), and exploiting the fault to poke around and see what information you can find.
I in no way condone the extradition or the heavy-handed way in which the US authorities appear to be conducting things, but no, he should not be praised.
Parent
He stole brains? Over the interweb? (Score:4, Funny)
He stole brains of the military, FBI staff and even of the President of the US? Over the interweb? By deleting files?
Prosecutors say he altered and deleted files at a naval air station not long after the 11 September attacks in 2001, rendering critical systems inoperable.
My,my. Isn't that something?
Re:He stole brains? Over the interweb? (Score:5, Funny)
So what you're saying is...
Zombie cracker attacks US, in a post 9-11 world!
If that's not fear-inducing, I don't know what is.
Parent
Re:He stole brains? Over the interweb? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's more that it indicates to us all that the security of the computer systems in many places are way too weak.
If they had sufficient security measures they would just have recognized that there was an attempt in just the same mood that we recognize that it rains. "OK, it rains, time to close the windows."
And if a defense organization is cracked, what does this tell us about how easy it is to crack commercial systems? Some hobbyists probably have better security!
Parent
BBC Confirms It (Score:5, Insightful)
The UK, as a seperate entity from the US, no longer exists.
If US laws can be enforced on British soil, but not vice-versa, then the UK is a defacto part of the US. But here's the clinching shit in your mouth: with no representation. What's the point of a government, if the laws they pass mean nothing?
Re:BBC Confirms It (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be part of the US if laws could be enforced mutually. Being unilateral, it means nothing less than being a colony. When your laws trump local laws without the ones being overruled having any way to appeal, it fits quite neatly.
Isn't that ironic?
Parent
Re:BBC Confirms It (Score:5, Insightful)
You would think so, wouldn't you? Apparently American citizens have something called 'rights', which means they cannot be extradited without the evidence against them being put before an American court. So Congress have not ratified the treaty. It only goes one way: we bend over, and get no reach-around.
Parent
The BBC confirms it : (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody intimidates the US government..
Our TWO main powers are extradition, rendition and prohibition.
Parent
Re:BBC Confirms It (Score:5, Informative)
This gets discussed [slashdot.org] every time this story comes up: no it doesn't go both ways. The UK has asked for the extradition of people from the US on charges of murder and have been refused. When it's the other way around, but is just some nutter that guessed the Pentagon's admin passwords were password or some stupidity, the Brit is passed straight over. Also the actual treaty itself is one-sided [slashdot.org]: the US doesn't have to provide proof to have someone extradited, but the UK does. The treaty is not constitutional in either country.
Am assuming this is a rhetorical question. Anyway, I don't have anything the average American, it's just the UK and US governments actions make my blood boil, as a Slashdot reader I can see I'm not alone. :)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> The treaty is not constitutional in either country.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the UK didn't have a constitution?
A disgrace (Score:5, Insightful)
Gary McKinnon was foolish. Yet he now faces up to 70 years in jail.
What angers me even more than the absurd penalties threatened by the US courts? The supine, wimpering acquiesence of the UK governmnt who will extradite one of its own citizens without evidence being required, yet demands no such reciprocal agreement with the US.
Mr McKinnon should burn his British passport and go away from the UK to some country which still cares for its citizens.
Re:A disgrace (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:A disgrace (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:A disgrace to common sense, and EU law (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
McKinnon shouldn't bother moving to Canada...at least not for a few more months. Our Prime Minister has his nose so far up Bush's ass he knows what Bush is eating for breakfast.
I think we need to hold an international "Throw Out The Fascists Day". It would be celebrated whenever some democratic country comes to its senses and votes the bastards out of office in favour of somebody who remembers what civil liberties are, and why they're more important than security.
Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
``or [...] should be praised for finding security faults in what should be extremely secure systems.''
That one is really easy. Finding said security flaws is an accomplishment, but that isn't the issue here. The issue is what you do once you find them. You get praise for actions that lead to improved security (reporting them to the vendor, fixing them, reporting them to users, etc.). You get condemnation for exploiting them for selfish goals. Same as always: do something for the common good? Praise on you. Screw someone over for your own advantage? Damnation on you.
Positively Human, Relatively Insane (Score:4, Funny)
With that type of excuse, one could get away with almost anything short of violently assaulting people in public, don't you think?
Too large to download? (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
As for his quest to find evidence of a UFO cover-up, Mr McKinnon has said that he found some circumstantial evidence online to back his claims, including what he said are photos with what he speculated were alien spacecraft airbrushed out of the picture. He said the photos in question were too large to download to his own computer.
So he somehow managed to SEE the photos (without any alien spacecraft on them, BTW), but wasn't able to download them? Am I the only one to whom this doesn't make sense?
Re:Too large to download? (Score:5, Funny)
It makes complete sense.
It's called perspective. He could see the pictures when they were far away because that makes them much smaller. But if they were downloaded onto his own computer they would be much closer, and therefore too big for it.
I use this same principle to cache the entire internet on a USB key that I keep on the moon.
Parent
the whole story... (Score:4, Interesting)
...is something you don't have.
1. Saying he was "just" obsessed with finding about UFOs is a thinly veiled attempt at making an unnecessary end justify the means. If you or your buddies have found a UFO, good for you, but information does not "want" to be anthropomorphised, and you can't just raid other people's stuff to satisfy your curiosity.
2. It's unlikely anyway. I've mixed in UFO/remote viewing circles thanks to a few obsessive buddies, and while "the government's hiding something" seems to be standard rhetoric, the hobby is empty of people carefully planning cracking raids to get it. It would be counter-productive to make enemies of the people you want to be more open.
The at-all-costs nutjob does not have the clarity of thought to do what McKinnon did, though congratulations for building the foundations for a failed insanity/naivete defence. Why don't you just give him blonde pigtails and a lollypop and tell him to say "oh wittle me, no Sir I had no idea that sweetie wasn't mine".
3. It's probable that he did something that neither side want to put out in the open.
4. But there's more than enough evidence for an extradition among merely what both sides agree happened.
5. No, "hackers", finding breakable security and breaking it is not a pastime that justifies itself. When you're happy not reacting to my regularly cutting the windows and defeating the locks of you and your most vulnerable family member so I can leaving a note saying "I just wanted to see what you look like - and show you how easy it is so you can stop me from doing it again" then at least you'll be consistent.
Everyone's personal security and privacy can be defeated eventually, including yours, and there's always someone smarter than you who can defeat it. If it hasn't happened to you already, it's not because you're an impenetrable leet haxor, it's because you're inconsequential. And if you ever become otherwise, good luck on that "Thanks for the help and implicit security advice! Look forward to more of your work" note you'll have to write to your intruder.
Re:the whole story... (Score:4, Informative)
"But there's more than enough evidence for an extradition..."
How do you know? The US courts have presented none, and the UK government has demanded none. Yet off to the US he will be sent.
One of the cornerstones of justice in developed countries has, until recently, been the concept of evidence being required, and to be presented in open court. However that concept seems to be falling out of fashion, to be replaced with a new idea of: "Fuck you. You're guilty. 'Cos we say so."
Parent
Blame Blair! (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, our former PM, the worlds worst negotiator, Tony Blair went and signed a bilateral extradition treaty with the US (the one which removes the burden of providing any evidence before extraditing) When the US refused to sign their copy of the treaty he just let it ride.
Thanks Tony, bang up job.
Damage or clean up bill ? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think his best chance of defense rests on whether or not this claim is true...
Only he knows if this is fact or fiction. If true (and they can prove it) then he's sunk and deserves everything he gets. But if it's not true then the chances are the US Govt are trying to blame him for the (supposed) $700,000 cost of securing systems that should have been tighter than a duck's back-side in the first place.
How much of this is truth, and how much is it a "cover your ass" exercise by the US Military to distract from their own incompetance?
somehow, stuff like this allows us to ignore (Score:3, Informative)
But in truth, I find it remarkable that the US government is not owning up to the fact that it also seems to be running what amounts to basically insecure systems on much of its IT infrastructure.
This dude may have been a crackpot, but somehow these antics are only performed for the sake of overreaction, when the blame should also be squarely shared by those who administer these networks.
As a US taxpayer, I find this last part infinitely scarier... especially because all of this saber-rattling is not likely to remedy the conditions that made it possible to do this in the first place. A recent security audit of US Gov networks gave them an 'F' if I remember (could be wrong)
Z.
I saw him interviewed (Score:4, Interesting)
And one thing that never gets discussed is what he claims he found. Which is modest enough (despite all the hours he put into the search) to sound almost plausible, and weird enough to be interesting: two folders of identically titled satellite photos, one folder of which was titled "unretouched". And a spreadsheet of names and ranks titled "non-terrestrial officers."
interview is long and the interviewer is an annoying UFO over-enthusiast, but Gary is actually pretty articulate and compelling. It's
here [projectcamelot.org] if you're interested.
Re:Speaking of crackers... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody really gives a shit (I didn't really even read the above post), I just find it kind of curious.
Are you the same dude that posts to EVERY article, or is there a whole "underground movement"?
Parent
Re:Speaking of crackers... (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably some kid that tries to get some attention, and thinks that he will get it, but by posting as an AC he won't ever get the infamous OMG Ponies styling of /. which I think is rather cute!
Just ignore him - he'll get tired of it or end up as cannon fodder somewhere.
Parent
Re:Speaking of crackers... (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that site appears to be owned by michaelmiller@gmail.com . Wonder if that's his real name, and if he ever gets unwelcome visitors round at his place.. I hope so!
I read it, and I have to admit that I don't see anything particularly funny about the incessant racist, antisemitic and homophobic jokes! In certain sarcastic contexts that can be funny, but when people mean it, it's just sad.
Parent
I propose... (Score:5, Funny)
That the term "hacker" be henceforth replaced by the term "fucker".
Yes, it may still lead to unforeseen consequences for the fucker when laymen (and women) star using the term without proper understanding of it, but isn't that exactly what the fucker community really needs?
Parent
Re:I propose... (Score:5, Funny)
Screw black/white/gray, I like it!
Parent
Re:Crackers, Hackers, and Slackers (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we give it up already and just forego the use of the term hacker meaning good computer nerd?
I've been arguing that for years, especially as in my experience in the UK, a hack most certainly is not a clever piece of code; the image presented is of someone making a mess of it, much like hacking through the undergrowth with a machete.
Besides which, you should attempt to target your language at the intended audience, and on a site like BBC News that most certainly is not the 5% of the population who know about the other use of the word.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's wrong with calling him a cracker? He's white.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
England? That's from where Mr McKinnon is about to be deported. Great choice.