McKinnon: The longest ever game of pass the parcel

[Theblacksheep]

The 2003 one way extradition law requires 'suspicion' of terrorism (probable cause if you are a US citizen). Unless you you follow the American definition: 'everything is terrorism' and ignore the court documents claims of what he is actually charged with: several counts of computer fraud.

 

The crime was a breach of the computer misuse act in the UK. He has not been charged by the CPS. Why everyone (including our government) is pandering to calls for erosion of national soverienty is beyond me (well its not, but it 'll save a bit rant).

 

Lucky it was him that walked through that open door, because someone with more malicious intent could have done some real damage. The US is trying to blow this out of proportion because once again they got caught with their pants down.... once again. Gary stated stated many documented facts in his 'rants', facts that dont like to be heard because they cause embaressment to the system and go against the PR, read the facts people.

 

Disgusting subtlety in 'the new republic' republishing the 'hang gary' picture. GTF .

Edited January 17, 2010 by Theblacksheep

[LeMarchand]

The skills he used to access the machines were akin to hacker kiddy skills - UNC paths, with default admin passwords, and remote installing a remote control program. Nothing amazing from what I can see.

 

Hmmm... possibly: but I'm pretty sure that most 12-yr olds, if asked to hack into the US Military's network, wouldn't have a clue where to even begin. Besides which, McKinnon blatantly knew what he was doing, and knew that it was wrong:

 

‘What I did wasn't very clever. There were slightly lower-than-expected lines of defence. I searched for blank passwords, and wrote a tiny Perl script that tied together other people's programs that search for blank passwords, so you could scan 65,000 machines in just over eight minutes. There was a permanent tenancy of foreign hackers. You could run a command when you were on the machine that showed connections from all over the world, check the IP address to see if it was another military base or whatever, and it wasn't.’

 

My guess would be that he thought that leaving the messages would leave some form of 'stop withholding information' message to the US govt. But the only person who could answer that is McKinnon.

 

“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.”

 

Not sure how that ties in with your theory.

 

Anyway, what about the convenient way that his "Asperger's" only manifested after his alleged crimes? I found the quote from his brief:

 

Why aren't they stopping the extradition of a man who is clearly vulnerable and who on the accepted evidence suffers from Asperger's?

 

My italics to highlight the overly(?) careful way that she describes her client's condition.

[Socrates]

Pointing out something is not the same as making fun. The reason I missed some things is down to the structure. It is difficult to follow, that's all I mean.

 

Is an essay's macroscopic structure Grammar? Please tell me. I'm a keen student of English - either stop criticising or start offering constructive/useful/usable feedback. And what's so difficult about following a hyperlink in a different colour? Are you colourblind? - perhaps in future I'll put them in bold with an underlined -hover..

 

Also, if you are so against McKinnon using his Asperger's as an explanation of his behaviour, then you have no grounds to bring yours up here. It would be hypocritical..

 

Do we have an Irony deficit?

 

I will henceforth use [irony] tags.

 

Why must I resport to childish behaviour ?- well, what's sauce for McKinnon is Gravy to Socrates.

 

They should have had backups and better security

 

I quite agree - but if you leave your front door unlocked, this is unlikely to be allowed as mitigation for an offence of burglary.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Socrates
Added hyperlink sentence and "?"

[localzuk]

I quite agree - but if you leave your front door unlocked, this is unlikely to be allowed as mitigation for an offence of burglary.

 

Using that same analogy - if you leave your garden gate open, someone who comes on to your property is not a trespasser.

[Socrates]

Disgusting subtlety in 'the new republic' republishing the 'hang gary' picture. GTF .

 

What's GTF?

 

And did you miss me supporting Liberty's campaign to save McKinnon, with this picture of an "Extradition Watch" plane inserted Umm... You know where?

 

#NOT WORK SAFE# THE NEW REPUBLIC: Autism 2010 - A Look Forward #NOT WORK SAFE#

[RingOfFlame]

Lucky it was him that walked through that open door, because someone with more malicious intent could have done some real damage.

 

I sorry but he may of accessed networks via poorly configured security settings, but he still hacked to gain access. For example you could have 2 homes whose front doors are protected a lock that out of the packet can be picked with a paper clip, but when configured needs a key and a code etc. I goggle about the lock and find out a "default setting" is open to being picked with a paperciip. I then break into the house with the weaker configuered lock. Then when I get caught I blame the home owner for having not configuringthe lock correctly to keep me out and say the voices in my head told me to do it so It's not my fault at all.

 

He deserves what's coming to him.

[dwhyte85]

I can't understand your eAttitude, socrates - alot of IT guys agree that this has gone to far, of course you're entitled to an opinion... but respect ours too.

 

Simply put, Gary got into the US systems and made them look inept. If Gary could do it how many trained terrorists could have done this, do they even know if other people got access?

 

What ever the US say... it has to be taken with a pinch of salt, what evidence do we have it is true? It is more likely to be a campaign for retribution to hide the fact they were slack on setting up machines & made to look silly, the US have quite clearly tried to make an example... when truth is they don't know if anyone else had access during this time - they were slack.

 

Any damage he could have done remotely shouldn't have been possible, think of it in terms of a teacher on VPN... any damage they do is my fault as the network manager, they should not have access to cause any problems. Any damage done should have been repairable simply from back-ups.

 

If he had installed remote software, how on earth didn't they notice it! Most keep an icon in the system tray, if not software should be used to monitor apps installed/removed on these clearly very important machines. If it was a trojan they would have surely found with AV.

 

He looked for unset admin accs, how is this stealing passwords, did he find a passwords.txt file on the root of the machines he got on?

 

Let's face it the US messed up, they did not give the necessary care into setting up systems which potentially held sensitive information & they want a scape goat, they want to pass the buck and blame Gary for the clear inability to setup the network securely.

 

In terms of cost... to deny remote access is quite simple, netstat -b would have shown the connections and app running, netstat -n would have shown IP and ports.

 

How about people running botnets and have government laptops infected, are they to get the same treatment? I doubt it.

 

 

The point is... does the crime warrant the punishment? In my opinion no it doesn't - people do far worse on-line and get away with tiny sentences (if any), if we think about it in-terms of cost, google darkmarket fraudsters... look at what they had done and how much it cost then review the sentences.

Edited January 17, 2010 by dwhyte85

[Theblacksheep]

He deserves what's coming to him.

 

The US deserves everything it gets for its murderous policies. Sweeping moronic statements aren't nice are they?

 

If someone attempts to hack the gov from your school network. The school network was the place where the crime was commited. The UK Crown Prosecution Service have not charged him.

 

The US are trying to do him on FRAUD. Considering the financial turmoil over the last few years they should look a danm sight closer to home for some decent fraud charges. This is pathetic.... the people securing those computers should be ashamed of themselves, knowing the US, they've probably got a promotion.

 

Is the US going to extradite the chinese government for hacking google? LOL.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Theblacksheep

[Socrates]

I can't understand your eAttitude, socrates - alot of IT guys agree that this has gone to far, of course you're entitled to an opinion... but respect ours too....

 

How about people running botnets and have government laptops infected, are they to get the same treatment? I doubt it...

 

 

The point is... does the crime warrant the punishment? In my opinion no it doesn't - people do far worse on-line and get away with tiny sentences (if any), if we think about it in-terms of cost, google darkmarket fraudsters... look at what they had done and how much it cost then review the sentences.

 

I do very much respect your opinion.

 

My position is informed by the fact that I have Asperger's Syndrome [AS] too - and I see AS being used as an excuse and a justification for avoiding justice and that makes me angry.

 

Spammers and Botnet herders deserve equal attention from the Yanks. But unfortunately the Yanks have Gary's address, not theirs - I've no doubt if they did, they'd be getting a ride to the US too.

 

What do you think the penalty should be for say, just the Weapons Station 'incident'?

[PiqueABoo]

Lucky it was him that walked through that open door,

 

I reckon there's a high probability that he was just one of a long line of "visitors" and he got tagged for it because he was the "lowest hanging fruit", so to speak.

 

if you leave your garden gate open, someone who comes on to your property is not a trespasser.

 

I note that trespassing is of course a civil offence i.e. no prison.

[dwhyte85]

Realistically a tenth of the media reported 70 years would be realistic, although not really in-line with what was committed.

 

3-4 years tops would be more than adequate, US then take a hit and say they have worked on improving security on IT systems and stop all the sillyness.

 

Again, in my opinion. If i was a US security official... i'd have to take this on the chin and put procedures in place to ensure it never happened again... rather than crying over spilled milk.

[Socrates]

I have to say I agree 6-7 months seems about right - even taking into account his Asperger's Syndrome.

 

The people I've spoken to in America that are involved with Autism advocacy also thought he deserved prison time - and 3 years was the figure one man gave - a man who himself despite having Asperger's managed to serve two stints in the US Navy - as opposed to hacking their boxes...

 

What I haven't talked about in my posts is the systems administrators. They really do deserve 70 years/hanging for risking such an important network.

 

I haven't heard a single thing about their role in this - no sign of anyone having been disciplined/sacked.

 

But anyway, it's irrelevant - McKinnon's Mummy called for a Whaaambulance, and it's arrived just in time. She won the battle. McKinnon walks.

[GrumbleDook]

This has been a fun thread with lots of rotten fruit thrown around (sweet $deity ... spot a troll when you see one and then ridicule instead of arguing if you feel you really must make a come back ... anything else is urinating into the wind! Of course .. that is just my opinion!)

 

Disabilities are not excuses ... there is no such thing as an excuse in law. There are mitigating factors for defence (or acquittal) and these can either help prosecution services decided whether it will go to trial or not, and when at trial they will help the jury decide whether they are innocent or guilty, or they will help in the sentencing if it is a guilty verdict. The constant use of it is almost counter productive. An offence is alleged ... and should be dealt with as appropriately as possible.

 

Saying that all mental health considerations should be considered *during the trial* and if necessary *during the sentencing and subsequent incarceration*.

 

I have two problems with what has happened though ... and these are my personal opinion (formed through understanding of a variety of facts and experiences, and happy to explain these to support my opinion).

 

1 - I hate the one-way rule. Sorry, but no country should be able to force another to give up a subject / citizen and not be able to do the same in return. Damned hypocritical for somewhere that politically aligns itself to freedom and fairness. Until this is addressed then I would not hand him over. Nothing to do with his condition, the offence or anything else. I know there are loopholes, political reasons and so on ... but sod it Gary, do a runner to France if you have to.

 

2 - The blame game that has gone on over this about who is at fault, who left doors ajar, who made to cock-up ... it is a bit lame. NSA guidance on security was not followed. Does anyone have any information on the inquiry about who was disciplined over this? NSA have not changed their guidance over hardening due to to the incident and why was that? Because if someone had done their job in the first place then a certain amount of this would be moot. The attempted access would probably have been dealt with under CMA and everyone would have been happy ...

 

But hey ... short of doing a runner to somewhere that will stick to fingers up to the US machine then he will end up going over ... will be supported over there as an icon against 'the man' and after a period will get repatriated. He is unlikely to get a job over there as he did not doing anything that special, and will probably come back here a bit more aware of what is going on in the world.

 

(I would like to say that I have no issue with US, US Citizens, many of the ideals held by the US Constitution but I do think that some people make stupid mistakes and decisions over there on a par with the ones made over here ... and I'll be vocal about the stuff over here too. Go on ... ask me why it is easier for someone to be hit by the civil law of Trespass than the criminal law of Harassment!)

Edited January 17, 2010 by GrumbleDook
Spelling - slpdexia stirkes!

[mattx]

I wonder if Roman Polanski will use the 'Asperger's Syndrome card ? It certainly seems quite a good one to hold doesn't it.

[localzuk]

Disabilities are not excuses ... there is no such thing as an excuse in law. There are mitigating factors for defence (or acquittal) and these can either help prosecution services decided whether it will go to trial or not, and when at trial they will help the jury decide whether they are innocent or guilty, or they will help in the sentencing if it is a guilty verdict. The constant use of it is almost counter productive. An offence is alleged ... and should be dealt with as appropriately as possible.

 

Saying that all mental health considerations should be considered *during the trial* and if necessary *during the sentencing and subsequent incarceration*.

 

I don't think anyone is saying he should be excused because of his disability. What they (and I) are saying is that his disability should preclude his extradition (well, that should be one of the reasons). Then that same condition should be presented, as you say, during trial.

 

I'll be vocal about the stuff over here too. Go on ... ask me why it is easier for someone to be hit by the civil law of Trespass than the criminal law of Harassment!)

 

I'd disagree with that... The law changes within the last decade have made harassment a simple charge to apply. Even for cases which are plainly not what normal people would call harassment (eg. calling 2 different people within the same company, after being told not to call by the first person).

[GrumbleDook]

I'd disagree with that... The law changes within the last decade have made harassment a simple charge to apply. Even for cases which are plainly not what normal people would call harassment (eg. calling 2 different people within the same company, after being told not to call by the first person).

 

When you have having difficulties of people coming to your property and harassing you (eg stalkers, etc) then it is easier to deal with them under civil law to restrict them from entering your property in future. To deal with them more harshly you need to take action under criminal proceedings. Trespass is easier but the penalties are lower ... trespass was referred to earlier so that is why I used it as an example of the use of an easier civil law to deal with an issue rather than a complex criminal law. When talking about harassment in the workplace then constructive dismissal is easier that harassment.

 

There are lots of little examples like this (noise abatement orders rather disturbing the peace, H&S rather than criminal negligence ... it goes on) and the people that like this are lawyers. It means that they will attempt to deal with an issue under civil law and should it not deal with the issue then they will help move forward with criminal proceedings. The same way if a criminal case fails you still have a number of civil law options.

[localzuk]

When you have having difficulties of people coming to your property and harassing you (eg stalkers, etc) then it is easier to deal with them under civil law to restrict them from entering your property in future. To deal with them more harshly you need to take action under criminal proceedings. Trespass is easier but the penalties are lower ... trespass was referred to earlier so that is why I used it as an example of the use of an easier civil law to deal with an issue rather than a complex criminal law. When talking about harassment in the workplace then constructive dismissal is easier that harassment.

 

There are lots of little examples like this (noise abatement orders rather disturbing the peace, H&S rather than criminal negligence ... it goes on) and the people that like this are lawyers. It means that they will attempt to deal with an issue under civil law and should it not deal with the issue then they will help move forward with criminal proceedings. The same way if a criminal case fails you still have a number of civil law options.

 

I see where you're coming from, what with civil cases being 'balance of probabilities' and criminal cases being 'beyond reasonable doubt'. However, harassment laws are now written in such a way to be able to get an injunction against harassment within civil courts, and then if it is breached it would be a breach of criminal law. (Getting those injunctions is pretty easy in my experience, there is even a solicitors group who specialise in doing it with minimal evidence, and doing it within a matter of hours in some cases).

[witch]

Disabilities are not excuses ... there is no such thing as an excuse in law. There are mitigating factors for defence (or acquittal) and these can either help prosecution services decided whether it will go to trial or not, and when at trial they will help the jury decide whether they are innocent or guilty, or they will help in the sentencing if it is a guilty verdict. The constant use of it is almost counter productive. An offence is alleged ... and should be dealt with as appropriately as possible.

 

Saying that all mental health considerations should be considered *during the trial* and if necessary *during the sentencing and subsequent incarceration*.

 

I have two problems with what has happened though ... and these are my personal opinion (formed through understanding of a variety of facts and experiences, and happy to explain these to support my opinion).

 

1 - I hate the one-way rule. Sorry, but no country should be able to force another to give up a subject / citizen and not be able to do the same in return. Damned hypocritical for somewhere that politically aligns itself to freedom and fairness. Until this is addressed then I would not hand him over. Nothing to do with his condition, the offence or anything else. I know there are loopholes, political reasons and so on ... but sod it Gary, do a runner to France if you have to.

 

2 - The blame game that has gone on over this about who is at fault, who left doors ajar, who made to cock-up ... it is a bit lame. NSA guidance on security was not followed. Does anyone have any information on the inquiry about who was disciplined over this? NSA have not changed their guidance over hardening due to to the incident and why was that? Because if someone had done their job in the first place then a certain amount of this would be moot. The attempted access would probably have been dealt with under CMA and everyone would have been happy ...

 

But hey ... short of doing a runner to somewhere that will stick to fingers up to the US machine then he will end up going over ... will be supported over there as an icon against 'the man' and after a period will get repatriated. He is unlikely to get a job over there as he did not doing anything that special, and will probably come back here a bit more aware of what is going on in the world.

 

 

skipping lightly back on to the topic:

 

 

In brilliant Grumbledook fashion he states the case clearly and sensibly: As far as I can see - 'nuff said'

[mattx]

 

1 - I hate the one-way rule. Sorry, but no country should be able to force another to give up a subject / citizen and not be able to do the same in return. Damned hypocritical for somewhere that politically aligns itself to freedom and fairness. Until this is addressed then I would not hand him over. Nothing to do with his condition, the offence or anything else. I know there are loopholes, political reasons and so on ... but sod it Gary, do a runner to France if you have to.

 

 

Don't like the extradition treaty signed between the US and UK after 9/11? Elect new leaders and get them to change or rewrite the treaty.

Just as the blind phone phreaker [ Joe Engressia - a.k.a "The Whistler" ] finally got some jail time, no sympathy should be given to Gary McKinnon, using a difficult to diagnose, opinion-based rather than science-based "condition" of Aspergers, diagnosed AFTER getting caught. He understands what he did? He's not mentally retarded or "challenged"? Then convict and sentence. As long as possible. And with a lonely, tall, fat, linebacker of a cell mate to keep Gary warm at night.

Also wondering what right Gary McKinnon has to crack US government and military computers and express his opinion of the US in messages left on those computers, regardless of any cover story of little green men. If you don't like the possible jail sentence involved in breaking into US military or government computers. Don't do the crime.

Edited January 17, 2010 by mattx

[Guest Htech]

maybe he is actually an alien and the reason the US are going so crazy over it, is because they know this and want to bring him to their country to do experiments. 0_o

 

[Socrates]

Many a true word spoken in jest.

 

~I say we check his DNA before deportation~