McKinnon to get just deserts.

[tech_guy]

Lamest excuse ever for hacking. Now stop whingeing and go face your punishment like a man. Idiot.

 

BBC News - Computer hacker Gary McKinnon 'is facing a US trial'

Edited November 27, 2009 by tech_guy

[mattx]

He looks like an Alien himself.

[CyberNerd]

all he did was:

start > run > \\Nasa_server_name\c$

then enter administrator with no password

 

it was a honeytrap, the guy was an idiot, but doesn't deserve prison in any county - let alone the us (the only state except for iran that executes children under 18)....

Edited November 27, 2009 by ChrisH

[mattx]

all he did was:

start > run > \\Nasa_server_name\c$

then enter administrator with no password

 

it was a honeytrap, the guy was an idiot, but doesn't deserve prison in any [/] county - let alone the us (the only state except for iran that executes children under 18)....

 

Not a real hacker then, a proper one would have entered CMD in the run box used a net use command........

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/17/article-1200266-05BCC105000005DC-952_468x325.jpg

Edited November 26, 2009 by mattx

[tech_guy]

all he did was:

start > run > \\Nasa_server_name\c$

then enter administrator with no password

 

it was a honeytrap, the guy was an idiot, but doesn't deserve prison in any [/] county - let alone the us (the only state except for iran that executes children under 18)....

 

I think you'll find China, Iran and Burma have a pretty bad track record....

[Andrew_C]

Ignorance is well know not to be an excuse in law; is being a damned fool?

 

The US is overreacting, he should be punished, but not by 60 years!

[localzuk]

Seems like 8 years of extradition hearings, and having the rest of his life put in the balance by something which doctors have attributed to his condition is punishment enough to me. Maybe give him some community service but extradition and facing 60 years jail in a country with even more of a knee-jerk reaction to the word 'terrorism' than ours? That's just a tad overkill.

 

Considering murderers don't even get that much.

Edited November 27, 2009 by localzuk

[Jon88]

I agree that a prison sentence is well over the top,

I think the US is just trying to make a bit of a scene out of the whole thing and make an example of him.

I think the guy has been through enough persecution already, his life will never be the same as it was before.....

And more to the point I can't see the US throwing someone out to be processed in our legal system; I don’t see why we should do it for them...

[Martin]

He committed an alleged crime whilst in the UK, so let him be tried (and if found guilty, punished) in the UK!

 

mb

[tmcd35]

He committed an alleged crime whilst in the UK, so let him be tried (and if found guilty, punished) in the UK!

 

mb

 

Welcome to the murky world of the interweb. It could be argued (they the americans probably do) that the crime itself was commited on US Soveriegn soil, so they have juristiction. Unless of course the pentigon are hosting their servers from a small warehouse in the docklands...

[featured_spectre]

which they probably are! lol

[Guest TheLibrarian]

all he did was:

start > run > \\Nasa_server_name\c$

then enter administrator with no password

 

@Cybernerd: Seriously, is that all he did? Can you link to any sites that show that?

 

If that is true, browsing an unsecure honeypot? And we (the British legal system) are prepared to roll over like a rolly-over thing and just hand him over to spend the rest of his life in a prison in a foreign country? This would make me ashamed to be British.

 

Would any other country hand over one of its citizens with so little fuss? I doubt it. More to the point, would the U.S. hand over one of its citizens to us if we just asked politely and got a funny handshake correct? I doubt that even more.

[CyberNerd]

@Cybernerd: Seriously, is that all he did? Can you link to any sites that show that?

 

I heard a bbc radio interview with him a couple of years ago. That's what he claimed. I gues you can find it on interweb somewhere. I was pretty shocked back then, but thought it would come to nothing as it's so pathetic. Aparently there was no firewall, no admin password and all the 'damages' to the machines were due to the fact that the US had to pay to get them rebuilt by professionals (not squaddies)

[localzuk]

If that's the case, any potential trial in the US would be a farce also - the media would jump all over the fact that the machines were unsecured during a time of heightened security threat to the country.

 

I'd hope that it would be a fairly simple job to prove that what he did was a case of idiocy rather than a malicious threat.

 

The charges against him are that he accessed machines, and intentionally caused damage without authorisation. There is also mention, multiple times, that he deleted files that the computers needed to run. (Which it would be nice to see proof of).

 

Personally, it'd be good to see the various military organisations held to account for running so many internet connected unsecured computers! What are they playing at?!

[zag]

@Cybernerd: Seriously, is that all he did? Can you link to any sites that show that?

 

Yes its absolutely ridiculous the charge of "hacking". To me hacking is breaking into a computer system for the purpose of stealing or doing something malicious. He was "scanning" Ips with an automated program.

 

He basically scanned a range of IP addresses looking for vulnerabilities, it used to be very easy to do this and the motivation was never to cause damage or anything political. This kind of activity was all the rage a couple of years ago when the universities had massive bandwidth backbones that could be easily compromised. Microsoft used to enable FTP by default on NT systems and so called hackers could easily scan a batch of IPs and find open ports to upload dumps to. There were entire "FXP" forums dedicated to it and thousands of people doing it simply for fun and because they could.

 

That fact that he scanned a military IP address was simply chance and to put it bluntly should have been secured better.

Edited November 27, 2009 by zag

[sparkeh]

I think Mattx's cartoon sums it up pretty well myself.

 

The fact that was have such an inequitable extradition arrangement whereby the US can take anyone they want with just a 'suspicion' of a crime being committed and we have to provide strong evidence is disgusting and shows how the US are prepared to protect its citizens while we spinelessly sell them up the river. It stinks.

[localzuk]

I'm kinda hoping that his lawyers manage to stretch out the proceedings until after the general election, so we get a replacement for Mr Alan 'i'm an idiot' Johnson, who will make the right choice.

[sparkeh]

I'm kinda hoping that his lawyers manage to stretch out the proceedings until after the general election, so we get a replacement for Mr Alan 'i'm an idiot' Johnson, who will make the right choice.

 

I believe I caught the Shadow Justice Minister saying that the Tories thought he shouldn't go.

His solicitors have 7 days to apply for a judicial review (incidently reduced from the normal, longer period everyone else gets) and failing that a trip to the European Court of Human Rights which could drag the whole thing on for years and years anyway.

I wouldn't bet him going anywhere is a hurry.

[torledo]

I'm kinda hoping that his lawyers manage to stretch out the proceedings until after the general election, so we get a replacement for Mr Alan 'i'm an idiot' Johnson, who will make the right choice.

 

i wouldn't count on that. I think the incoming govt. would be just as keen to bend over for the americans.

 

although, having said that, the mail seem to be in support of blocking the extradition on medical grounds, so there's clearly some media oppositon to the extradition that any home secretary would be stupid to ignore. But then 'stupid' is Alan Johnsons middle name.

 

And to think some reckoned this turd was labour leadership material.

[torledo]

I believe I caught the Shadow Justice Minister saying that the Tories thought he shouldn't go.

His solicitors have 7 days to apply for a judicial review (incidently reduced from the normal, longer period everyone else gets) and failing that a trip to the European Court of Human Rights which could drag the whole thing on for years and years anyway.

I wouldn't bet him going anywhere is a hurry.

 

But in power, would they be willing to sour the special relationship even a little. After all, we went to war inspite of millions protesting and dissenting, becuase our PM didn't want to say no to our bestest buddy. That's even before the whole issue of special rendition, where we bent over once again.

 

But then other nations have shown you can say no or disagree on such important issues and still have a trade and political relations with the worlds superpower. So why our leaders can continue to be so afraid of standing up for and protecting our own citizens i don't know. Johnson's just taken the easy way out, he's anticipating the media attention blows over presumably.

 

I'm kinda hoping that his lawyers manage to stretch out the proceedings until after the general election, so we get a replacement for Mr Alan 'i'm an idiot' Johnson, who will make the right choice.

 

i think this one is going to run and run with further appeals.

Edited November 27, 2009 by torledo