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."
Should he be praised (Score:5, Interesting)
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"?
Re:Should he be praised (Score:5, Interesting)
Governments and quite some companies disagree.
Re:A disgrace to common sense, and EU law (Score:3, Interesting)
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: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?
Re:A disgrace (Score:1, Interesting)
The hacker, in this case is harmless. Much more dangerous are the people pursuing this little freak instead of focusing on the bad and stupid guys, like the ones who configured those secure(sic)machines he tapped into from another contry!
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?
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.
Re:BBC Confirms It (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Should he be praised (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly. And this "terrorism" is precisely why the UK wanted to extradite know IRA terrorist from the US but the US refused to cooperate. The fact there was plenty of evidence these men had murdered innocent women and children with their bombing, the US kept them nice and safe from the UK mainland.
Re:Should he be praised (Score:3, Interesting)
In the interest of proposing a solution, would it not be better to try such individuals in the UK if the US and UK could agree on common definitions (legal defs that is) for crimes and some kind of sentencing guidelines? I'm not suggesting that our UK friends bring back the death penalty (although for some of those Enron execs, you know...) but there is a disparity between sentences meted out in both countries (say I after a cursory reading of the 'crime' sections of the the BBC and CNN). I think that such an arrangement would let both countries feel that justice was being done, and that neither government was a sock-puppet for the other. I know, I know, the US gov't hasn't been accused of being an English sock puppet since the 18th century, but the principle applies...
Re:the whole story... (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
And, moreover (especially in the USA, where it was pioneered): "If you plead Not Guilty, thereby wasting our valuable time and annoying us, we will hit you with charges that ensure you spend several thousand years in prison". Thus getting a majority of accused persons to plea-bargain and submit to punishment and a criminal record, without ever taking the trouble to determine whether they are actually guilty or not.
Then again, if you are rich (like OJ Simpson, for example) you can go to court with a reasonable expectation of being acquitted however strong the evidence against you.
I was born in a (relatively mild) dictatorship, and have lived in two others. And nothing I have seen recently contradicts the rule I learned before I was 10 years old. "Any country that has a Ministry of Justice is one in which you are most unlikely to get justice".
Re:the whole story... (Score:3, Interesting)
You should research a bit more too. The computer analysis and interview were by UK authorities who decided he had done nothing that merited prosecution.
The US then anyway demanded extradition. They (the US) have presented no meaningful evidence. Nor, tragically, does the craven UK government require them to do so.
On this basis if I burn a US flag in the UK, I can thus be extradited to face US justice, despite having committed no crime in the UK?
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.
Re:or justified prosecution? (Score:2, Interesting)
Whatever else he did, he knowingly accessed restricted computers whilst America was in a state of war.
isn't america always in a state of war?
Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798 - 2007 [64.233.167.104], Congressional Research Service. (google html cache of a pdf)
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.
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.
Re:Easy (Score:2, Interesting)
I did not say he didn't do any harm. He did hack into * army, navy, NASA and DoD computers. But I think that breaking into unsecured computers in order to give the world access to the US-Government's hidden aliens spacecraft technology can hardly be called "screwing someone over for his own advantage".
Wacky? Definitely. Evil? I don't think so.
The problem is: These various government agencies need a scapegoat. Having a Scottish hairdresser turned nutjob owning Navy computers shortly after 9/11 is just something that makes them look bad, so they have to present him as some sort of evil terrorist mastermind and threat to national security. So I doubt he will get a fair trial or a punishment that fits his crime.
* I am using this term in the loosest possible sense. According to him, the computer were unsecured windows boxes which every script kiddie could have pwned. He describes himself as not even being a hacker.
For the record (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Should he be praised (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, that's not really it at all.
Plea bargaining is dangerous because it tends to generate what comes to be known as the 'trial penalty'- the extra time that the DA will ask for if you go to trial that he wouldn't ask for under a plea bargain.
However, that's not to say that the trial penalty is intimidation. Rather, it's generally exactly the opposite- the DA is supposed to hit you for the full value of the law if he can. It's his job to prosecute you to the full extent of the law.
But DAs and judges deal with a lot of cases- in some cases, hundreds or thousands a year. As a result, major defense attorneys, DAs, and judges, together the judicial community, basically all come to an understanding of what each crime is 'worth'.
A plea bargain basically gives the defendant the ability to go to the DA, show them any extenuating circumstances, and have the community come to an agreement on what the crime is 'worth'- something that they can do because they handle so many different cases that they know the going rate.
Trial is much more uncertain. You may win, you may not win, the sentence handed down may be high or low, or the defendant might be acquitted... it's unpredictable entirely. Everyone involved, especially if you're guilty, generally wants to get it over with quickly- and one of the major ways to do that is with a plea bargain.
In a case like this, where it's relatively clear he doesn't want to plead out and there really are issues at play, the DA's job is to basically gather up every single thing he can think of to throw at the defendant and do it, on the hope that something'll stick, even if some of it doesn't convince at trial.
The justice system doesn't need to intimidate you- it's infinitely better funded, better equipped, and more knowledgeable and experienced than most people can ever hope to be. That's intimidating by itself.