BBC Profiles Extradited Cracker Gary McKinnon 315
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."
Witch burning (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A disgrace (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A disgrace (Score:2, Informative)
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. :)
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.
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.
Re:BBC Confirms It (Score:2, Informative)
Of course this could be all wrong - like most legal stuff it's (unfortunately) best to ask a lawyer.
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.
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."
Re:A disgrace (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Easy (Score:2, Informative)
Same as always: do something for the common good? Praise on you. Screw someone over for your own advantage? Damnation on you.
But neither of those categories applies to this case. Well, in his mind the first one probably does. And even though I obviously wouldn't agree with him, I fail to see how he screwed anyone over for his advantage
Re:the whole story... (Score:1, Informative)
Sorry, rambo, but you may want to do your research [parliament.uk] first.
16. Analysis of the appellant's home computer confirmed these allegations. During his interviews under caution, moreover, he admitted responsibility (although not that he had actually caused damage). He stated that his targets were high level US Army, Navy and Air Force computers and that his ultimate goal was to gain access to the US military classified information network. He admitted leaving a note on one army computer reading: "US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days . . . It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year . . . I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels . . ."
If I put a note in your /home saying I'll continue to disrupt you "at the highest levels" and admit to it, would you thank me and send me on my way? Tell me, what would you do, exactly? Try to eliminate any hubris that will lead to either the answers "I'm too leet to get haxored a second time" or "I'm too leet to get haxored in the first place".
Re:BBC Confirms It (Score:1, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
It's really not that hard..
Re:Should he be praised (Score:3, Informative)
'Convicted' where? I agree the charges have been leveled, and I do not debate the veracity of the claims - there is quite enough evidence in the public domain to justify a trial, but so far, I have not heard of one actually taking place. Plus, how does one convict a country? Maybe indict the head of state for a trial in the Hague... wait a minute...
Re:A disgrace (Score:3, Informative)
The USA passed a law [guardian.co.uk] specifically allowing the US to invade the Hague to retrieve any US soldier or citizen held at the International Criminal Court.
This is basically to prevent any of their soldiers or contractors being tried for war crimes by an international court. Obviously, even soldiers can be tried in a given country for offences committed there; but the US is not exactly easy to get extradited from, and even when you do face trial, the witnesses and evidence are hard to get hold of [timesonline.co.uk]. Take the examples of the rape cases in Japan for example, or the italian cable car incident where drugged up pilots struck and severed the cables where US co-operation was less than stellar.
Re:Not Reciprocal (Score:3, Informative)
My understanding is that it needs to be signed by your Prez first and he won't.
Treaties that are not signed by the President can't be ratified by the Senate. In the U.S., the President has the authority to enter into treaties "with the advice and consent of the Senate". In practice this means that the President signs a treaty and then the Senate ratifies it.
Re:Terrible Mugshot (Score:3, Informative)
The worst thing Gary McKinnon has going for him is that photo that's shown alongside every article that mentions him. I couldn't imagine a better caricature of a 'malevolent hacker' if I tried.
Picking a photo image of someone that leads people to judge him. - That's journalism