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."
Oh dear , how naive (Score:5, Insightful)
Expecting politicians to turn vague electioneering rhetoric into actual action.
McKinnons case will be quietly shuffled off to some under secretary to "look into" and once the media have lost interest he'll be on a plane to Dulles.
Re: (Score:2)
McKinnons case will be quietly shuffled off to some under secretary to "look into" and once the media have lost interest he'll be on a plane to Dulles.
I think he's got a good chance. Both guys ran on a platform of not being quite so much america's lap dog. McKinnon's case has had some serious publicity, killing his extradition would be a great symbolic gesture, enabling them to continue being america's lap dog where it really counts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's telling how quickly Obama jumped on the chance to congratulate David Cameron, and get Clinton to send the new foreign secretary over to the US after the coalition decision was made when taken in the context of how the Obama has treated Britain since he became president- he's basically shunned the UK, despite the old government bending over backwards for them.
I think Obama is actually concerned that the new administration will in fact stand up for itself, and recognises that the US wont get such
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is probably partly to do with the fact that large parts of the main coalition party, the Conservatives, are quite xenophobic and are still living under the delusion Britain rules the world.
For any Americans reading this, this statement is utterly retarded and completely false. The Conservatives are nothing like this. They weren't even really like it 30 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
This will be interesting.... (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
he once called Camerons plans for a British Bill of Rights "Xenophobic and a legal nonsensity".
To clarify the parent, that's because Cameron was proposing repealing the act that gave the ECHR [wikipedia.org] legal force in the UK courts (the Human rights act 1998 [wikipedia.org]).
Re: (Score:2)
and the crime was committed in the UK
Ahh, but that's the messy part. Was the crime really committed in the UK? After all the servers were physically in the US.
Going to over simplify this but lets assume you have an house and your house is beside the border of France and Spain. Lets also assume that border is only 1inch wide and you have a window facing that border. I throw a brick and smash your window, where was the offence committed?
After all throwing a brick isn't illegal, it was only when it hit your window it became a crime but your win
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
After writing I did have another thought, He did break UK law, he also broke US law. Due to the nature of the internet he was able to break the laws in 2 countries at the sametime. So in theory he should be tried and sentenced in the UK, then after he has served his sentence in the UK, he should be deported to be tried and sentenced in the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The crime was committed FROM the UK, upon computer systems residing on US soil.
If he didn't want to be punished, why did he volunteer for it by committing the crime? No sympathy here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The UK already has adaquate laws for the prosecution of the crime, and the crime was committed in the UK
Was it? I'm sure there is case law to deal with these instances, but one argument is that typing occurred in the UK but hacking occurred in the US. The last time we had this discussion, I proposed the following thought experiment:
A French person with a rifle shoots across the France/Germany border and kills a German. In which country did the murder occur?
Re:A little perspective from the UK (Score:4, Informative)
It occurred in the country where the Frenchman was firing the rifle.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The US?
The principle of the matter. (Score:4, Interesting)
This is what happened to the NatWest Three, a UK based offence against a UK bank. Of course they were extradited to Texas where it was felt they could hit them with more offences for longer sentencing and with an easier conviction (of course there is a huge tinfoil hat conspiracy regarding using these as fall guys in a forced plea bargain to cover up Bush administration involvement in the Enron scandal but that is an argument for another day)
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030041_en_1
Re: (Score:2)
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:A little perspective from the UK (Score:5, Interesting)
"I rather suspect that that imbalance is what causes many people much disquiet."
Actually, I suspect it's largely patriotism. No one wants to see one of their citizens handed over to a foreign power with no worthwhile favour in return, and yet, that's exactly what the Labour government was proposing.
I'd wager this has been fed by the fact we've got some of our soldiers dying in a war, that, once you cut away the rhetoric, really had fuck all to do with us, and made us less secure in that we're not as much a target as the US- prior to that, we weren't really a target for Islamic terorism because we were so tolerant of islamic communities. It's further not helped by the fact that when the US manages to kill some of our soldiers in a friendly fire "accident" (I wouldn't call it an accident, I'd call it incompetence) they refuse to assist in the coroners investigation by witholding the gun cameras. Add to this the threats of withdrawing security cooperation with us when our courts wanted to release evidence of our secure services being complicit in torture of British citizens by US forces and you begin to see why there is such a backlash.
Probably, if the US hadn't been so difficult over so many things over the last decade, despite us giving them something that can't really have a value put on it - the blood and lives of our soldiers in support of their war - then they could've gotten away with this extradition and a lot of people wouldn't have even batted an eyelid at the case.
But no that didn't happen, and so people in the UK have simply had enough, and McKinnon has become the catalyst for which people are standing up and demanding that our government starts saying no to the US.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
my take on this as an aussie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The treaty was written and signed to create terrorism
There, fixed that for ya.
Look up “terrorism”. It’s the act of creating terror. And such fearmongering is the exact point of the whole operation.
Re: (Score:2)
My take on this as an American (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the difference between hacking the Pentagon because you believe in aliens and hacking the Pentagon because you believe in Allah?
Everything.
While the mechanics of cracking system security may be the same, what you intend to do with the information you uncover, and your broader intentions against the US (if any) are very different.
In the case of Aliens, you're not exactly looking to fly planes into buildings, blow up cars in Times Square, or behead journalists. In the case of Allah, these intentions have already been demonstrated rather unequivocally in the real world, so extrapolating threats based on variations of past performance is not unreasonable, nor likely to yield broadly inaccurate predictions. Until flying-saucer nuts start threatening non-believers with death and mayhem, I'll tend to treat them as harmless eccentrics rather than potential terrorists, even when they cross the line and stupidly try to break into military computers.
There's absolutely no reason for the US to go after this guy--he's got a mental disorder, has already been severely chastened for his actions, is clearly not a threat to the US (or anyone else), and isn't likely to survive the so-called 'justice' America has in store for him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the difference between hacking the Pentagon because you believe in aliens and hacking the Pentagon because you believe in Allah?
Belief in aliens is less farfetched
Re: (Score:2)
You are hacking the Pentagon because you want to find out what secret info they have about Aliens.
You are hacking the Pentagon because the voices in your head told you that Allah wants it destroyed.
Same old Same old... (Score:2)
Ok, first off, this "hacker" with aspergers, if I remember correctly, used a 56k modem, while being constantly high, to scan for windows boxes with blank passwords.... And the US wants to hang him high? Car analogy incoming: If you leave your car (computer system) on the internet (imagine Cuidad Jaurez) with its window down (ports open, blank passwords), and someone comes along and replicates the iPod in your car, still leaving your iPod there, is it really that bad? As for the things he found, he said th
Re: (Score:2)
Ah correction, it appears "he did admit he may have deleted some government files by accidentally pressing the wrong key"
Re:Shrug (Score:4, Insightful)
You're whole point is aimed at the wrong target: nobody says that he shouldn't be tried and convicted if found guilty - even he himself admits he's done it.
The point that most people are making is that he should be tried (and convicted if found guilty) in the UK, not the US. There's plenty of reasons for that, the main one being that the penalties imposed by the US justice system for the kind of crime he commited are considered excessive and inhuman in the civilized world.
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: (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 wi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[...] perhaps I am just fucking tired of parking my bike outside a busy supermarket and when I come back I find that someone had tried to steal it before noticing it is locked [...] Frankly this guy gets on my nerves. He has two choices, go to jail and I hope he has the shit raped out of him or be treated as the mentally retarded person unable to be responsible for his actions
Boo-fucking-hoo you sadistic fuck, quit your whining! The man is only asking to be tried and sentenced in the same country the crime was committed in. Why should the UK even extradite their citizens to a foreign country for a crime committed in UK? The definition of extradition says (emphasizes mine): returning a person who has committed a crime to the state or country where the crime was committed to stand trial and the crime wasn't committed in the USA, was it?
Not to mention the fact that if he'd be ex
Re:But now (Score:5, Insightful)
Say he fired a cruise missile at the whitehouse from the UK should he be tried in the UK?
Obviously, yes.
However I see the structure in your sentence implies the answer might be "No". And answer I can't even imagine.
Now I'm interested in anyone's explanation on why would someone have to face a legal process that's not of his country.
I'd welcome any other similar example too. Paying another country's taxes, electing another country's president (Ok, forget that last one if you're CIA).
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: (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: (Score:2)
Cite?
Time says otherwise: [time.com]
the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that taxes its overseas citizens, subjecting them to taxation in both their country of citizenship and country of residence.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
What's your definition of "one's country"?
Apparently its different from that of all the other countries except the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
"one's country" is the country which owns you.
Re: (Score:2)
"one's country" is the country which owns you.
With a careful definition on what a country is and how can it "own" things, that definition is quite appropiate.
Re:But now (Score:4, Funny)
Countries can't own anything. The Queen does all that, don'tchaknow?
Your obedient subject,
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Except for recent rules where expats are required to report any foreign bank account with more than $10K and failure to do so can result in serious penalties.
Re: (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 exception
Re: (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 imagi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But now (Score:5, Interesting)
that's the problem in this case. Under the new 'fast track' extradidion, a British court never gets to consider whether there is evidence to justify the charge.
That's important in this case, because although Gary admits that he hacked the computers, the key point is what level of damage he did. There is a strong implication that the damage numbers were concocted in order to meet the threshhold required to justify extradition.
Essentially, in order for the extradition to work, the US have to state damages above a certain level. Gary's team contest that the $700k damages alleged were simply concocted to meet this level.
Given that Gary hacked into computers that just had the default windows password set - and that the damage was calculated by figuring the cost to audit and fix this breach, there is at least an argument that this should have been done anyway, and isn't damage caused by Gary.
Unfortunately, Gary doesn't get to make that argument until after extradition.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I performed a criminal act, I can reasonably expect to be tried in the country where the crime was performed as the laws of that country were violated.
Seeing that McKinnon performed the "crime" of "breaking" (bad security is no security, therefore he did not break any security) into government computers in his home country, not inside the U.S., he needs to be put on trial in his home country.
In addition, the U.S. has shown to have completely no respect for human rights. So, he can reasonably be expected
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I performed a criminal act, I can reasonably expect to be tried in the country where the crime was performed as the laws of that country were violated.
Crimes are committed rather than performed, but yes, exactly.
Seeing that McKinnon performed the "crime" of "breaking" (bad security is no security, therefore he did not break any security) into government computers in his home country, not inside the U.S., he needs to be put on trial in his home country.
The question of where the crime was committed mig
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
He illegaly gained access to servers in the US, so he commited the crime in the US and should be prosecuted there.
Who decided he illegaly gaines access? The US?
Now imagine you're just browsing and North Korea decides you were illegally accessing their servers. Should you be sent there? Or maybe it'd be more reasonable that the north korean government informs yours of what they see as a crime and let your own law decide whether you're a criminal or not.
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: (Score:2)
Even here, in the UK, it's against the law to gain unauthorized access to a computer system.
And yet a judge has to decide whether you committed a crime or not.
Another country telling yours you committed a crime may, as the very most, grant an investigation. Period.
Re:But now (Score:4, Interesting)
However in order to be extradited the US Gov had to show damages above a certain level.
WHich they *blatantly* fabricated. $700k to audit windows computers to fix a *default password*? That cost was already sunk - they would have had to change them anyway, or they shoudl have done!
ANd uner the one sided, inane extradition treaty you cannot fight this until after you have left your home country behind...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and in the UK he'd get sentenced for breaking into a computer. The US want to punish him for the crime of showing what a bunch of incompetent fucks the clowns in pentagon are.
According to the prosecutor, they intend to "fry him". That alone is proof that a) he won't have a fair trial and b) they intend to issue a disproportionate sentence. The former at least is grounds for the Home Secretary - or rather a competent one - to veto the extradition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But now (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember: He fully admitted breaching the systems described; He had no malicious intent, he was investigating UFO cover-ups; He has recently been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome, and professional medical opinion is that he will fulfil his stated intention to commit suicide if extradited to the US for trial; The access he obtained was extremely easy to obtain, and would most likely have been abused by a malicious attacker had it not been discovered by Garry's actions.
Garry is guilty of illegally accessing government computer systems in the US, but the sentencing guidelines would put him at at least 70 years old when he is released. There are no words for how inappropriate that is.
Re: (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:5, Insightful)
It seems to make it reasonably okay to me. The point of the law isn't to be a set of rules that exists solely for the point of having rules, like some sort of game-theory problem or videogame diversion, but to keep society reasonably in order. On the list of things that cause significant problems for society, and which are worth allocating resources and authority to stop, a crackpot trying to find UFO evidence is pretty low; the only real damage such a person causes is essentially accidental, and doesn't seem worth extraditing someone to another country or jailing them for decades over (even if you're purely selfish: remember, jailing people for decades costs you lots and lots of money).
I'd say the proper response to a slightly crazy person breaking into computers to find UFO evidence is to institutionalize them for some period, and then try to wean them back into society, probably while keeping their computer use restricted or monitored initially.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The military computer had no password protection, so this guy "hacked" nothing. He is not a hacker..... the front door was wide open. In most U.S. jurisdictions leaving the front door open makes the OWNER guilty of the crime, so the network IT guy should be the one charged. The person who entered through the front door gets a lesser sentence of "trespassing" which is just a few months jailtime.
Really? Let's look at two examples! (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets say that I send information about bypassing censorship to someone living in China. Should I be sent to China to be prosecuted about this? Of course not: The deed should be judged based on the laws of the country where I was when I committed the deed. Even if the target is in another country.
Now, you can say "But that isn't illegal in the country in which you live. It is different.". I don't think that changes anything (because it still means that I should be judged by the country in which I am) but let's look at another example where this isn't the case.
Let's say I download the latest blockbuster movie through the bittorrent network. It is illegal here and it is illegal in the USA. Most likely the company that owns the rights to the movie is in USA and it might even be that some of the people I downloaded the movie from (for simplicty's sake, let's even say that all of them) could be located in the USA. Does that mean that I should be sent to USA to be prosecuted instead of being prosecuted by them in the justice system of this country? I certainly don't see the logic here.
The guy lives in UK and was in UK when the crime was committed. As such, can you explain why he should be sent to USA to be prosecuted instead of being trialed in the UK, in a way that is also consistent on your views about the two examples I gave. Naturally, if you disagree with me (that the people in those examples should be sent to China and USA respectively), it becomes a very easy task.
Re: (Score:2)
You shouldn't be sending anyone to China because neither the US nor the UK have an extradition treaty with China. That is pretty much the end of it. You also probably shouldn't be sending folks to the US over bittorrent downloads seeing as how that is a civil crime and I am pretty damn sure not subject to extradition treaties.
It is pretty simple. The dude broke a US law on a US computer system. The UK has an extradition treaty. If the crime meets the criteria for extradition, he should be extradited.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
You also probably shouldn't be sending folks to the US over bittorrent downloads seeing as how that is a civil crime and I am pretty damn sure not subject to extradition treaties.
Copyright infringement is a criminal act. At least one person [wikipedia.org] has already been extradited to the US on charges of copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose those American owned servers had been in a datacenter located in China? Not an unreasonable hypothetical at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, IIRC, the computers he "hacked into" weren't even password protected for the most part. He wandered blithely through some of the most sensitive computer networks in the US for months, unchallenged, and was only caught when someone noticed the mouse pointer moving by itself on a monitor somewhere.
So, a lot of US brass got egg on their face, and want to throw the book at the poor bas
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think lots and lots of community service, fixing PC's for the elderly or refurbishing PC's the low income earners, is the right way to go with non violent crimes like this, which frankly are pretty victimless.
5 years doing helpde
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I'm interested in anyone's explanation on why would someone have to face a legal process that's not of his country.
As one example, you might want to consider the the principle that forms the basis of war crimes tribunals [wikipedia.org].
Then, of course, there's the Polanski case ...
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (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: (Score:2, Interesting)
If they commit the crime abroad and against a citizen of another state I guess the local justice can do what the fuck they want. And the foreigner traditionally does not have the same level of protection of a citizen. For this reason treaties are signed that allow him to contact his embassy, for example, have a right to an interpreter, etc. But without a treaty whoever has him in their hands can try him.
Also, one's own country could be too light on punishment with that, or could have no laws against the par
Sit in London, hire assassin over the phone in NY? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm interested in anyone's explanation on why would someone have to face a legal process that's not of his country.
Because he committed the crime abroad. Where he was sitting when he commanded the crime to happen isn't relevant, so long as it has an extradition treaty. If you sat in London and hired an assassin over the phone to kill someone in New York, you'd be accessory to murder in New York, not in London.
Gary's a fully-functioning adult with a girlfriend and common sense. His only mental questionability is that he was overconfident; result: he got caught. He's guilty as sin. Extradite the daft bugger and be done wi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The physical location of the perpetrator at the time he or she commited the criminal act defines the crime scene, at least in any sane jurisdiction. Otherwise, you'd have extradition requests from Thailand and a host of other places with lese majeste laws for things people in other countries wrote on their web pages.
A countries penal laws can have provisions for applying in other cases, but
Re:But now (Score:5, Insightful)
Blocking the extradition would give both leaders brownie points with their own MPs. They'll want to stifle any murmurs of discontent from MPs who weren't to happy at their leaders 'selling out' their core values to get in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Crime committed FROM the UK against US property is more like it.
If I shoot someone across a state line, the crime is committed upon the victim.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say getting hold of a £500000 ICBM is still pretty far fetched. We have gun laws in the UK.. maybe the Americans can buy them in walmart, but we don't have the second amendment here :-)
Re: (Score:2)
I would say getting hold of a £500000 ICBM is still pretty far fetched
Well, we can offer you the "silver deal". Instead of flying over the ocean, the missile gets a little boat and two robotic arms to row. It does take some time to reach its destination, though.
Re: (Score:2)
If I put a picture of my wife on the internet should I be extradited to Saudi Arabia for breaking their laws and corrupting the morals of their citizens?
We could do this all day...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you were located in Saudi Arabia at the time you did it, sure. Otherwise it is up to the Saudi people to ensure they don't import anything from other countries which is illegal in their own. Just like it's not legal to import legally purchased canabis from Holland into most other countries.
Most of these laws were written a long time ago by people with no understanding of technology, so they don't take into account that someone can cause illegal activity to take place half way across the world without req
Re: (Score:2)
Case in point [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>Not that surprising really as for decades the USA refused to extradite convicted terrorists that had fled to the USA from both the UK and France.
Also funny how those US citizens who openly funded the IRA were not held accountable as well.
What kind of stupid comment is that? (Score:2)
"And he never hacked into any important or valuable computers, only webservers."
Oh right, so webservers arn't an important part of the internet then?
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mckinnons case the statement you made is just moronic.
And as for it being long ago, so was WW2. Perhaps we should just let old nazi murderers have a nice peaceful retirement too?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh right, so webservers arn't an important part of the internet then?
I have a blog on my webserver, can't say I'd label it as an "important part of the internet" though.
Had he compromised the root DNS servers, ok, that would be damaging an "important part of the internet"
And as for it being long ago, so was WW2. Perhaps we should just let old nazi murderers have a nice peaceful retirement too?
What age are you 12? Seriously, comparing compromising a few computers with genocide..
Since I have karma to burn, Well you make a good point, tbh we might as well as those we haven't caught have already enjoyed the majority of their remaining years. It probably costs more than it is worth just to spend the
Re: (Score:2)
"I have a blog on my webserver, can't say I'd label it as an "important part of the internet" though."
If someone hacked into your bank account via a compromised web server you might have a different opinion.
"What age are you 12? Seriously, comparing compromising a few computers with genocide.."
I wasn't comparing it to genocide. My point which you didn't get is that it doesn't matter how long ago a crime was committed. If the perpetrator is still alive then he should still be brought to justice.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of idiot would store their details / important confidential data on their web server? That goes for companies as well
You're right, So when are we going to bring the catholic church to task for the crusades?
BTW I am not suggesting that seven years is too far in the past
Re: (Score:2)
"What kind of idiot would store their details / important confidential data on their web server?"
No sonny , a bank stores customer details in their backend systems but if you can hack the web server you can intercept unencrypted account id's and so forth being sent to the backend systems.
You'd better run along now, teacher probably wants you back in class.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony hacked into thousands of people's computers with their DRM software. Apparently that's OK because they're big business and they were protecting sales or something.
No, it's not OK. Sony committed a worse crime than this bloke who just logged in to some computers using a default password. Sony deceptively installed a trojan on their customers' machines which impaired their function and made private information public. McKinnon didn't even publicly release his findings. By this logic, it's Sony who s
Re: (Score:2)
"I think hacking into a web server without destroying anything is a very petty crime"
I guess when you're old enough to buy a car or house you'll think that someone breaking into them is a "very petty crime" then.
Re: (Score:2)
"I think hacking into a web server without destroying anything is a very petty crime"
I guess when you're old enough to buy a car or house you'll think that someone breaking into them is a "very petty crime" then.
I would think someone opening my car door, looking around, then walking away was a minor crime.
Someone intentionally scratching the paint is minor crime. It's annoying to me, but it doesn't affect anyone else
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they break into the car/house without doing any damage its a petty crime. A crime yes, but a minor one. Not something you extradite people for with anti terrorism laws exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
In England, if someone walks through an unopened door, has a look round and leaves, that is just trespass which attracts a very nominal punishment.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, I wonder why the people who failed to secure that network, which supposedly contains sensitive information, are not on trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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 perso