In UK, Hacker Demands New Government Block Extradition 349
Stoobalou writes "Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon has called on the newly elected British government to put its money where its mouth is and tear up his extradition order. US prosecutors have been trying to get McKinnon before a New Jersey court for seven years after they caught him hacking into US military and NASA computers looking for evidence of UFOs. David Cameron, the newly elected prime minister, and Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, had both voiced their support for McKinnon's campaign against extradition. Other ministers in the coalition government had branded the extradition unjust. Clegg had even joined McKinnon's mother, Janis Sharp, on a protest march."
A little perspective from the UK (Score:5, Informative)
Whilst it's undeniable I think that he did actual do it, there are a lot of people that cannot see why he should be extradited. The UK already has adaquate laws for the prosecution of the crime, and the crime was committed in the UK so it has always seemed odd to a lot of people that he should have been extradited, especially with the massive imbalance in potential sentence between the UK and US for this. I rather suspect that that imbalance is what causes many people much disquiet.
Cameron is not going to be too concerned either way one suspects, although he will probably lean towards not extraditing him. Clegg however as a hard and a fast Liberal is almost certainly going to move all that he can to ensure he is not extradited. The one person to consider though in all this is Kenneth Clarke, whos is the Justice Secretary. He has interesting views - he once called Camerons plans for a British Bill of Rights "Xenophobic and a legal nonsensity". Quite what his feelings are on the extradition - and he gets the ultimate say as Justice Minister are as yet unknown. From what little I know of him personally I suspect he would favour prosecution in the UK but for all that his views are relatively unknown.
Re:But now (Score:4, Informative)
I'd welcome any other similar example too. Paying another country's taxes,
American expats are the only nationals in the world who have to pay income tax to their country of citizenship even when they have lived on foreign soil for decades.
Re:But now (Score:3, Informative)
Now I'm interested in anyone's explanation on why would someone have to face a legal process that's not of his country.
It depends on the rules of court for claiming jurisdiction, often jurisdiction is extended to the place where an offence is committed. This is not necessarily where the accused was at the time of the offence, as in this case, where, depending on the relevant law, the offence, at law, may have been committed where the "break-in" occurred.
As regards extradition, where I am .au, and I imagine in the UK too (since we share much of the same law on questions like these), an extradition should be granted only for an offence recognised by local (ie the country granting the request) law, and for which the punishment would not be considered unduly harsh by the standards of the local country. Thus most countries won't extradite (or even cooperate with supplying evidence) if there is a possibility that the state will execute the individual.
Re:But now (Score:3, Informative)
Re:If you get paid into a foreign bank account... (Score:5, Informative)
... then how are they going to know how much you earn anyway? Surely you could just tell them anything and end up paying little or no tax?
In my experience, that's what usually seems to happen: people just ignore this law because it's almost impossible to enforce in many cases.
The exception is where the person still has a significant legal connection with the U.S. -- for instance, someone who works for a U.S. company in one of their foreign offices, and is paid by the U.S. arm of the company. Even in that case, there's a pretty large exemption on which you don't have to pay U.S. taxes, which pretty much covers your entire salary unless you're very well paid.
Because of the large exemption, the IRS also has little incentive to even try to enforce the law unless you're an executive or something and they suspect you have a substantial salary.
Re:A little perspective from the UK (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But now (Score:4, Informative)
Even here, in the UK, it's against the law to gain unauthorized access to a computer system.
Re:But now (Score:3, Informative)
BBZZZTTT, WRONG! Australians also have to pay income tax to the Aaustralian tax office even though the don't live there or use any of the services that income tax provides.
unfair and stupid, yes.
Re:A little perspective from the UK (Score:4, Informative)
It occurred in the country where the Frenchman was firing the rifle.
Re:But now (Score:3, Informative)
actually, the max sentence in the UK at the time of the offence would be 6 months. (according to wikipedia anyway)
-and given that this was low tech hacking (just using default passwords and not damaging stuff), he might get off with a slap on the wrist.
Re:But now (Score:2, Informative)
From what I have read of UK law interpretation a GROSSLY simplistic overview;
A citizen of a country is required to conform by the rules of that country. In return for complying with the rules that citizen is offered protections by his country to which he is a member - and is subject to punishment if he does not comply with the laws of his country.
Country's, however, can be seen as legal "persons" in their own right. as can a government agency, a company (corporation) and verious other groups of individuals.
If a British citizen were to commit a crime in the U.S.: the Brit has essentially committed a crime against the U.S. as a legal person, since his victim was under protection from the United States.
The united states could now complain to the U.K.
The U.K can then if requested, Extradite the citizen: - essentially relinquishing protection for it's citizen. By relinquishing its protection it is compensating the United States as well as sending a message that this criminal action was done by a "rouge individual" rather than the country itself.
If the U.K refuse to extradite they are essentially condoning the criminal action upon which the U.K. becomes the injuring party and the U.S. becomes the injured party.
Options now for the British would be to make a monetary reparation (as frequently happens for war reparations / covert operations), come to an informal agreement (possibly by offering to encarcerate the British criminal on British soil), or simply do nothing (a good example of doing nothing is the American drone attacks in Pakistani territory). It is also entireley possible for the injured country to declare was on the injuring country (This was the precedent for the war in Afghanistan)
It is important to note here that should the British Citizen who actually committed the criminal offence be tried he is being tried (and potentially punished) for the damage he has done to the U.K. and NOT the U.S.
As can be seen in the case of McKinnon it does not matter where he was physically, his attack was against the United States - and since he is a British citizen it is up to the British government to decide whether to extradite him.
this concept is not limited to serious crimes. TECHNICALLY China could demand the extradition of a western journalist for writing a piece inflammatory to China, and America could request the extradition of a British citizen for littering. the only difference is the former would almost certainly be thrown out before it had any chance of making it past junior civil servants, and the latter would cost far more than could be justified to the American people.
Personally, I hope that (being a patriotic Brit) that they do not extradite him and instead seek other means of coming to an agreement - but that is my opinion and I made that clear along with my other opinions on election day.
Re:Really? Let's look at two examples! (Score:3, Informative)
The issue here is apparently that there is a lower limit for severity of a crime before the extradition treaty "kicks in" and there are a lot of people who are arguing that the claimed damage i vastly exaggerated (that pretty much any cost related to the systems in question in any way since he first connected to them is being thrown into the alleged damage he made).
Re:Shrug (Score:5, Informative)
1) 50 years in PMITA prison is *not* commensurate to the crime
2) The level of damages has been inflated to include *actions they should already have taken* in order to justify the extradition.
3) He has ASKED to be tried in the UK, where the actual act AND intent were committed.
Re:But now (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously, yes.
Is it really that obvious? For example, should the Lockerbie bomber (Pan Am flight 103) be tried in Libya or in the UK?
Seeing as the crime was committed in the UK, he should be tried in the UK (and was). Gary's crime was also committed in the UK, so he should be tried here.
Re:If you get paid into a foreign bank account... (Score:3, Informative)
Most importantly, you're still getting screwed because the country in which you reside (and work, presumably) still expects you to pay taxes, so in the end you're paying:
(local taxes) + (U.S. taxes) - (some exceptions meant to avoid double-taxation) = (still more than you would pay in either country if you were taxed only by that country)
When the other country you're living in is a European country with a very high tax rate (e.g. France, Sweden, etc.), you end up paying a lot more in taxes than you are getting in return benefits.
Re:Shrug (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A little perspective from the UK (Score:1, Informative)
it's not Ken Clarke's call, it's up to the Home Secretary, Theresa May.
Ultimately though it's the PM's decision.
Re:But now (Score:2, Informative)
Half the IRA - including known murderers - were hiding in plain sight in the US at one point.
Re:The principle of the matter. (Score:4, Informative)
Terrorism? Seems to be a charge frivolously bandied around by the US a lot these days, ask anyone who has been in Guantanamo, or extraordinarily renditioned to Syria while transiting JFK en route home to Canada.
That is a straw man argument. You can't be given the death penalty for simple terrorism in the US. Please show me where there has been a district attorney who has even TRIED to get a death penalty punishment for someone other than 1st degree murder. While I am against the death penalty, that doesn't change the fact that a DA can only ask for the death penalty under a very strict set of circumstances. Hacking isn't one of them. And it isn't optional.
Re:But now (Score:3, Informative)
BZZZTTT, WRONG! Australians also have to pay income tax to the Aaustralian tax office even though the don't live there or use any of the services that income tax provides.
No we don't. Foreign income affects your tax _brackets_, but you still only have to pay tax on the income earned in Australia.
Re:But now (Score:3, Informative)
actually the number was much simpler.
I think the relevant threshold was $5k, so they just said.
Yup- $5k damage done in each case.
multiply by n computers.
to get 700k damage.
Re:Shrug (Score:3, Informative)
"PMITA" stands for "pound me in the ass" -- a tasteless gallows-humor joke about the prevalence of rape in the US prison systems. (I first heard the phrase in the movie Office Space.) Many of us Americans fear that, were we to go to prison, we'd be raped. I have no idea how rational this fear is, but it's very prevalent. Pretty much anyone in the US that you talk to about prisons will have the idea that if you go to prison, someone will be getting raped.
It's despicable, reprehensive, and barbaric. I wish it were not something we felt we had to joke about (ha ha only serious). Perhaps people would be more willing to go to prison for a few months or a year (rather than stacking appeals until they're out of money) if they knew they'd be safe from being raped.
Re:Give me a break (Score:3, Informative)
Quite naturally. The UK does have laws against such things.
You send the criminals to the other country to be tried and sentenced in order to send a message to the other government that, "Even though this person committed a crime against you, it was not supported by our government and we bear you no ill will."
And prosecuting and putting said person in prison will not do that? I'm not following here. Usually, prosecuting someone and locking them away is a standard way of a government saying "We don't approve of what you did.".
There is some sort of group-think amongst slashdot readers that computer crimes are not crimes at all and should readily be forgiven.
No, but they guy's been in jail for a couple of years now without trial, for something that he could easily be prosecuted for in the UK.
I am saying that he is hardly innocent, and that, at the very least, the UK should give him a token jail sentence as a gesture of good will towards the U.S.
He's been locked up for a couple of frickin' years now. If they put him on trial today and give hime a "token" jail sentence, he'll be out tomorrow for time already served.