BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?

Subject: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 05 Dec 11 - 07:10 PM

Gary McKinnon, wanted in the states for hacking into Pentagon computers, could at last be safe from US justice. British MPs tonight agreed to urge the UK government to review its extradition laws and renegotiate its unbalanced treaty with the US. The motion, put forward by a member of the ruling coalition, went through unapposed.

Even if nothing happens before the next stage in McKinnon's case, the courts will be obliged to take account of the expressed will of parliament. Looks like the boy is safe at last.

MPs urge reform of US-UK accord

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Dec 11 - 11:29 PM

Safe???? Watch out for the drones!!

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 12:49 AM

Am I missing something? Why will the courts "be obliged to take account of the expressed will of parliament"?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 08:01 AM

Agree with Richard there. A motion like this is just an expression of opinion by whatever MPs stuck around and voted for it. It's got no effect on the legal situation.

It is of course absurd that this extradition should go ahead. Any offence involved would have been committed on British soil by a British citizen, and the British authorities have decided there are no grounds for a prosecution in Britain.

It's a bit as if the Saudis were getting a Londoner deported to face trial in Rabat for having an alcoholic drink in a pub.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 08:38 AM

I think it is a little more like mailing a letter bomb than drinking in a pub.

If he had stole money from a US bank, do you think he should be extradited then?

What if an American had stole British secrets through hacking? Or Stole from the Royal Bank of Scotland? Should that hacker be extradited?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 02:40 PM

Well, not obliged, but they do consider parliamentary intentions when applying statute law. And it they don't in this case, the Home Secretary certainly will. McKinnon's extradition is now inconceivable.

I don't know whether theft is covered by the treaty, Jack, but let's suppose it is. I would be perfectly happy for someone to be extradited for that offence provided that the country seeking extradition presented a persuasive case to a British court. This is a common enough requirement in extrdition treaties and is no more than the US demands of the UK. There is however no reciprocal obligation on the US.

I don't quite see the analogy with letter-bombing. Gary McKinnon didn't try to hurt anyone. He didn't even need to apply his precocious gift for math(s). He just walked into the Pentagon system through an open door. In exposing its mickey-mouse security he did US spooks a service. And realising, no doubt, that an organisation that set up such a system would be too dumb to catch him, he was kind enough to leave his calling card.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 03:19 PM

The US authorities claim he deleted critical files from operating
The following is from McKinnon's Wiki page. I have to admit you were right, it is nothing like a letter bomb. No letter bomb could do $700,000 in damage.



systems, which shut down the US Army's Military District of Washington network of 2,000 computers for 24 hours, as well as deleting US Navy Weapons logs, rendering a naval base's network of 300 computers inoperable after the September 11th terrorist attacks. McKinnon is also accused of copying data, account files and passwords onto his own computer. US authorities claim the cost of tracking and correcting the problems he caused was over $700,000.[3]

While not admitting that it constituted evidence of destruction, McKinnon did admit leaving a threat on one computer:

    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 … [4]

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 03:24 PM

He should stand trial, but in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 06:36 PM

I do not believe that he will get a fair trial in the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 06:41 PM

PS - and if the Senate and House bills about military trial do get combined and signed into law (although Obama has said he will refuse to do so) then McKinnon would, all the time he is on US soil, be at risk of being seized into military custody for a military trial in which he would have at best limited rights.

And all the time he was detained, would he be assured of going free from harm?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 08:32 PM

Yep, I wouldn't disagree with that, John. And no doubt he will indeed go on trial in the UK. He'll probably get a few weeks in clink, and deserves to, but nothing like the 60 years maximum available to a US court.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 06 Dec 11 - 10:22 PM

He did a lot of damage, threatened more, then stupidly got caught. It was cyber terrorism. But at most he should get ten years out in three with good behavior. In my humble opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 05:46 AM

Somewhere between the token few weeks, and the vengeful ten years would fit the bill. Maybe 5 years of which he'll only spend about 2 in jail, and the remainder on licence.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 06:19 AM

He should be tried before there is a verdict or a sentence, and he should be tried in a forum where he will get a fair trial, and he should be safe pending trial

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Silas
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 06:23 AM

Far from punishing him, the US should give hiom a medal and a job. If he can hack into the worlds most secure computer system and have a play with it from his bedroom laptop, then who really is to blame?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 06:58 AM

Far from punishing him, the US should give hiom a medal and a job.

Well I'm not going to applaud hacking but is it only the US that perhaps should be thankful that the flaws in security were exposed by someone pretty harmless?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 11:59 AM

$700,000 damage, Jack? Do you believe everythhng the Admin tells you? Knocked out 2,000 computers? What kind of a ramshackle system were they running? Let's hope they've made it a bit more robust now. Anyway, closing down the Pentagon for a while was doing the world a favour :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 12:35 PM

Running a computer system as vulnerable as that was incompetent and irresponsible.

The US government should be grateful to McKinnon for exposing this scandalous state of affairs, and should be turning its attention to whoever it was who was responsible, and ensuring that it can't happen again in a real cyber attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 12:59 PM

Oh, Kevin - that system probably cost a lot of money paid to a normal part of the industrial military complex in the best interests of capitalism!

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 01:03 PM

The claim has been made that McKinnon has Aspergers Syndrome and is therefore not answerable for his actions. But it seems to me he knew what he was doing. My niece has Aspergers, and certainly knows right from wrong. I wonder how severe his disability is?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Silas
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 01:11 PM

If the pentagon computer system can be hacked into by someone, weather aspergers or not, it shows a massive weakness in US security. The hacker is not responsibe for the weakness of the security system and should be applauded for bringing its weakness into the open before a really malicious hacker got there and started WW3

Give the guy a medal.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Bert
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 10:05 PM

...Any offence involved would have been committed on British soil...

And since when have the Pentagon computers been on British Soil?

All hackers should be made to pay the full cost of the damage that they cause. (Well those that you catch anyway)

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Dec 11 - 07:59 AM

The badly set up computer system was in America, but the computer McKinnon was using was back here, in his bedroom. If he's committed an offence he did it here.

If the prosecuting authorities here don't think its worth prosecuting him, there is nothing to stop the Americans trying take a civil action against him here.

If McKinnon had been an American, and he was accused of hacking into MI5 or MI6 computers can anyone conceive of his being sent over here to be put on trial? Actually you can be pretty certain they'd hush the whole thing up, they'd be so embarrassed at being shown up as buffoons...

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Dec 11 - 08:02 AM

That was me on a different computer, hadn't signed in...

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Bert
Date: 08 Dec 11 - 07:10 PM

...Running a computer system as vulnerable as that was incompetent and irresponsible...

Another case of blame the victim. So anyone who gets mugged, raped or robbed, it's their own fault for not taking sufficient precautions. Therefore we will let the poor criminal loose to do it again.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Dec 11 - 10:23 PM

Eliza, the extent to which Asperger's affected his behaviour is for a court to decide. And a court will indeed decide. I'm just happy that if the US authorities decline to present evidence to justify his extradition, it should be a British court that decides.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 01:15 PM

Ah, but if he is deemed a vulnerable adult, the CPS may be unable to bring him to court at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Bert
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 04:17 PM

It's funny how people find that criminals suddenly have mental problems
AFTER they have destroyed other peoples property.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: RichM
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 05:02 PM

Americans can be a vengeful lot, when the rest of the world doesn't kowtow to them!

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 05:24 PM

Well if he is not responsible for his actions and he has the ability to do sophisticated hacks. He should at be banned from using Internet connected computers for life as, by the logic expressed on this threads, should all of those with Aspergers.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 10:25 AM

I don't know what to think. There are apparently different degrees of Aspergers. But he must have known he was doing wrong surely. And if people with this disability are dodgy when let loose on a computer, as you say Jack, all of them should be banned from the Internet. His mother says he'll take his own life if extradited. Here in UK, if a person is deemed unfit to plead due to a mental disability, they cannot be charged or brought to court. I know my niece (who is not severely affected) is always on her laptop, and so far as we know doesn't cause problems!

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 10:37 AM

Well if he is not responsible for his actions and he has the ability to do sophisticated hacks. He should at be banned from using Internet connected computers for life

I don't know how sophisticated his hack was but I feel confident that China, Russia and others who the US might not trust could launch far more sophisticated hacks that he could...

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 10:42 AM

So is he responsible enough to have a computer? I am not saying that these people are dodgy. But if he can use it as an affirmative defense, can we take that chance? The Nigerian scammers if caught would be able to claim they have Aspergers and would all get off Scot free.

Also I have to say, in this country, and in Canada the mother's word is not considered, because of understandable bias, in considering a criminal's fitness for trial.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Silas
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 10:44 AM

You should give this guy the credit for showing the weakness in your security systems. Calling for a lifetime ban on him using the intrernet is a bit like the catholic church and Gallileo.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:12 PM

Only if Americans can go to London throw a brick through a jewelery store window and grab merchandise and if they get caught they get nothing more than credit for showing the weakness in your security systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Bert
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 08:39 PM

They should add up the total cost that hackers incur to computer users in a year. Divide that sum amongst the number of hackers caught, and don't set them free until they have paid their share.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Silas
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 04:41 AM

No Jack, lets not be silly. We are talking about what should have been the worlds most secure computer network. Obviously your own security boffins were not capable of testing its security limits - look at it as an unpaid consultancy.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 04:43 AM

I'm not a fan of hackers either but I fail to see why the US leaving open doors in their top security system does not seem to be an issue to some (and no, JTS a glass window is not a high security system).

As far as I can guess, this sort of sloppiness on the part of the US could have world wide implications.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 04:47 AM

(I seem to have cross posted with Silas there - I'd not read it when I posted my reply)

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 12:12 PM

So all that a group of robbers has to do is get through a supposedly secure system and clean out a vault, lets say that they managed to steal the British crown jewels, that should be looked at as unpaid consultancy?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Silas
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 12:19 PM

Well it seems we are having a little difficulty in getting you to understand the seriuosness of the situation Jack. We are not talking about material values here, we are talking about the worlds most secure computer system being invaded by some guy in his bedroom working off a laptop. Now, does it not strike you that this guys knowledge of computer systems and securities would be a valuable asset to anyone who wants to build a 'hacker proof' system?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 04:13 PM

It is you that do not appreciate the seriousness. The man is a thief and a vandal. What difference does it make what kind of computer he used or from what room? The likelihood of systems being hacked by, for instance, stumbling on a username and password rises with the number of attempts. The lesson sent to other would be hackers is way more valuable than any expertise he might have.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 04:36 PM

The problem as I see it, is that people on the Autistic Spectrum, become obssessive about things that really interest them and can't stop themselves from carrying on. Aspergers are very very intelligent and couple that with an interest and obsessiveness is probably what has caused this. I doubt if he meant to cause that much damage. I beleive his obsessiveness caased this to happen.

If he got a sever reprimand, I doubt if he would ever want to do it again.

Autism is a serious issue and people on the spectrum, need to be protected.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 04:51 PM

Well said, arthur itis.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 05:26 PM

The likelihood of systems being hacked by, for instance, stumbling on a username and password rises with the number of attempts.

And that likelyhood is reduced by the strength of passwords. Also, a secure system might be expected to have some means of for example raising an alarm in the event of multiple failed logins.


The lesson sent to other would be hackers is way more valuable than any expertise he might have.

Hmm. he did claim that his method of entry was to look for places where default passwords had not been changed...

Some do release more information though.

In June 2011, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) experienced a security breach that led to the public release of first and last names, usernames, and passwords for more than 11,000 registered users of their e-Bookshop. The data was leaked as part of Operation AntiSec, a movement that includes Anonymous, LulzSec, as well as other hacking groups and individuals. The aim of AntiSec is to expose personal, sensitive, and restricted information to the world, using any means necessary.

On July 11, 2011, Booz Allen Hamilton, a large American Consulting firm that does a substantial amount of work for the Pentagon, had their servers hacked by Anonymous and leaked the same day. "The leak, dubbed 'Military Meltdown Monday,' includes 90,000 logins of military personnel—including personnel from USCENTCOM, SOCOM, the Marine Corps, various Air Force facilities, Homeland Security, State Department staff, and what looks like private sector contractors." These leaked passwords wound up being hashed in Sha1, and were later decrypted and analyzed by the ADC team at Imperva, revealing that even military personnel look for shortcuts and ways around the password requirements.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Bert
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 08:03 PM

No Silas it is not about the worlds most secure computer system.

It is about every computer in the world and the money and time that EVERY computer user has to expend in combating these thugs.

It is not about Aspergers or Autistics or punishement. It is about restitution.

If the thug was not responsible because of a mental condition, then those responsible for him are.

And if you think that hackers are so great then come and fix my computer now!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 10:30 PM

And pay for my Norton's Antivirus!

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 10:48 PM

Actually I think it's about the "worlds most secure computer system" getting hacked and about the hacker.

With regards to the former:

It is about every computer in the world and the money and time that EVERY computer user has to expend in combating these thugs.

Sure hacking is not nice and time and money is spent on combating them. I had my website hacked last year (SQL injection attack coming from some games computer network in Holland using automated tools that discovered I had not escaped a query parameter I should have...) and I can assure you I was not exactly overjoyed. Still, there's not much else I could do but find and fix the problem, recognise that a failure on my part did make the exploit possible and hope that we are safe now.

That said, I do believe that the measures one takes to combat hacking have to be balanced against the consequences of being hacked. In this respect, I believe that "the worlds most secure computer system" is relevant...


With regards to the hacker, I do not believe Autism and Aspergers completely excuses his hacking but I think it is something that should be taken into account when considering sentencing or extradition.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Silas
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 06:25 AM

The problem here is simply " How dare they even think about hacking an AMERICAN computer" you are completely blinded to the consequenses of a serious terrorist attack on your computer system, and this guy, criminal though he might be, has alerted your inefficient and poor security. For that alone you should be thanking him, and thanking to your God that he was realatively harmless.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Silas
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 06:35 AM

You seemed quite happy to use the expertise of werner von braun didn't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Bert
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 12:45 PM

Who is 'you'? It was the Allies who agreed to drop the bomb. Were you not on their side?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Silas
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 01:24 PM

I have no problem using the expertise of of a superior intellect, neither did you americans during the war, pity you have changed your attitude and simply want blood for your own inadequate security lapses

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 01:26 PM

Silas are you in some sort of contest where you try to say the stupidest possible thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Silas
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 01:29 PM

No Jack, I leave that to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 01:30 PM

Not as good as the previous one. Keep trying.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Bert
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 01:38 PM

...simply want blood for your own inadequate security lapses ...

Don't you just hate these people who blame the victim and want to let the criminals go free?

It must take a really warped mind to think like that. Either that or they are really crooks and want the same treatment for themselves when they get caught.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Silas
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 03:56 PM

OK, its obviously pointless tryingb to put forward a rational argument with people who only read in the post wghat they want to read.

I wont say you are a bunch of moronic wankers, I'll just think it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Bert
Date: 14 Dec 11 - 03:05 PM

You said

...Far from punishing him, the US should give him a medal and a job. If he can hack into the worlds most secure computer system and have a play with it from his bedroom laptop, then who really is to blame?...

I only read into that just what you have said.

That he should be given a medal and that it is the victim's fault.

If it wasn't for crooks like him and those assholes who support him and condone his criminal activity then none of us would need security systems at all. And I wouldn't have had to spend several hours yesterday cleaning a virus off of my computer.

He committed the crime and should be held accountable and should be made to pay restitution. If the British legal system can't or wont deal with it then he should be extradited.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Dec 11 - 05:02 PM

If it wasn't for crooks like him and those assholes who support him and condone his criminal activity then none of us would need security systems at all.

There will always be criminals regardless of whether others defend their actions.

Even if the elimination of the "common criminal" was possible, do you seriously believe nations would not need high security systems?


If the British legal system can't or wont deal with it then he should be extradited.

The British legal system can deal with it but it seems unlikely that the US system would deal with it in a proportionate manner taking all factors into consideration. I believe a number of your comments highlight my fears with regards to the likely US "justice".

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Bert
Date: 14 Dec 11 - 06:30 PM

...do you seriously believe nations would not need high security systems?...

We only need security systems because of crooks and traitors.

Also there is no such thing as absolute security. One of my Computer Science teachers was a security expert for NORAD and he told us of the tricks he played to break into their system, and he always succeeded.

US security systems are far more advanced than their British counterparts. So by the logic of McKinnon supporters It would be fine if I were to break into British military computers.


...my fears with regards to the likely US "justice...

The US justice system is far more respective of the rights of the accused than is the British.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 14 Dec 11 - 07:22 PM

We only need security systems because of crooks and traitors.

You don't think nations spy on one another?


US security systems are far more advanced than their British counterparts.

Seems to me this one had some pretty basic flaws.

So by the logic of McKinnon supporters

???

It would be fine if I were to break into British military computers.

No but I don't believe the majority of McKinnon supporters believe hacking is "just fine".

The US justice system is far more respective of the rights of the accused than is the British.

I wish I shared your confidence...

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Bert
Date: 18 Dec 11 - 04:18 PM

...We only need security systems because of crooks and traitors.

You don't think nations spy on one another?...

But I don't think that it is Nations who are responsible for the majority of malicious viruses that bugger up our home computers.

ANY hacker who is caught should be made to pay restitution for the damage that their crime has caused.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

...US security systems are far more advanced than their British counterparts.

Seems to me this one had some pretty basic flaws...

When I worked for BAC in England, anyone could just walk into the site and get access to drawings of any of the missiles, all you had to do was go in when everyone was going to work and nod at the guards as though you belonged there.

I bet you couldn't do that at the Pentagon, and you certainly can't do it at any of the military installations here in Colorado Springs.

Again ...Seems to me this one had some pretty basic flaws....

Any system can be broken into. I won't tell you the tricks that our Computer science teacher taught us because there are too many people here who think that hackers are some kind of Saints.

------------------------------------------------------

...The US justice system is far more respective of the rights of the accused than is the British.

I wish I shared your confidence...

They can't even pull you over in traffic here without a valid reason, which certainly wasn't the case in England when I was there.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 03:09 PM

I don't recognise the UK (or "England") you are remembering, Bert. Perhaps your memories are a bit hazy.

If McKinnon has Aspergers, then any narrow-focus brainpower he has is likely to be related to that condition. And it will be that brainpower that has helped him do what the Pentagon was naively hoping no-one - not even serried ranks of KGB codebreakers and tekkies - could ever do. If Jack thinks McKinnon got into the systems by plodding through a few thousand password possibilities, he's as naive as the Pentagon. As has been said several times, someone should be harnessing McKinnon's gift, not locking him up.

The primary issue concerning the UK courts at present is not whether Aspergers constitutes a defence for McKinnon; nor is it the extent to which Aspergers would be a mitigating factor. It is the effect that incarceration - particularly in an overseas country - would have on McKinnon if indeed he does have Aspergers. (Whether he does or does not is not something that will be determined by his mother, by the way.)

I am much happier that these questions will be dealt with in the UK than I would be if they were passed to the US. And like Jon, I am confirmed in that attitude by Jack's hysterical lust for vengeance and Bert's irrational prejudice, founded apparently in some hassle he's had with his PC (by relying on Pentagon Anti-Virus, I suppose).

Regarding Bert's despair that mental health issues are discovered only after crimes have been committed, I'm afraid that's just about as far as the understanding of mental health has got. The health problem is detected only when it has manifested itself in criminal behaviour. Sometimes however the signs are there for all to see, before any crime has been committed, but those who do see just happend to be dumb. Witness Bradley Manning.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Bert
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 05:00 PM

...I don't recognise the UK (or "England") you are remembering, Bert. Perhaps your memories are a bit hazy...

I remember being stopped by the police in England several times. They did not HAVE to have a reason, although on a couple of occasions they did volunteer one, and on one occasion they actually gave me a ride.
Nothing hazy about it.

...I am much happier that these questions will be dealt with in the UK...

Is the matter being DEALT WITH in the UK? That is an issue that seems to have been overlooked. If the UK courts were to ensure that full restitution were made, then I don't think that the US would have too much to complain about.

I don't think that Aspergers is really the issue. The thing is that he committed a crime. The crime was against computers that are in The United States. Why shouldn't he be tried in The US? That seems fair. 'IF' he has a mental condition the diminishes his responsibility then the courts here are just as likely to take that into consideration and be fair with him.

If someone were to launch a missile from a foreign country, and that missile were to land in The US; then surely that crime should be tried in the US, whether the person launching the missile had Aspergers or not.

I must admit to having a prejudice against criminals and so does US law.

It seems from the number of people who support this criminal that a similar prejudice might not exist within the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Dec 11 - 06:04 PM

Hey Bert - would you like a copy of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)? Sorry chap, you are just plain wrong about UK procedure, and I certainly trust our judicial system more than yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 04:47 AM

Jack's hysterical lust for vengeance.

Peter K (Fionn) That is a personal attack and unfounded. The man is charged with a serious crime and should be tried and if found guilty, punished. UK and US societies are built on law and order. There is no lust. There is no hysteria, unless you are projecting your own hysteria on me.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Silas
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 06:03 AM

Jack, what is the bigger crime, allowing the worlds most potentially dangerous computer system, one that could effectively start world war three to have such a lax security system that a nerd can hack it from a bedroom laptop, or the hacker himself who did at least draw attention to the problem before a hostile foreign power gained access to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 06:10 AM

It looks like a hysterical lust for vengeance - and indeed vengeance regardless of whether the true rule of law would require punishment - from here too.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 06:46 AM

So Silas you are alleging that he hacked the launch codes for the Nuclear weapons and chose not to use them because of his sense of Patriotism to the US? If that were the case, then Hacky McHacker should get a ticker tape parade down Broadway. Or at least a night in the Alps with a Bond girl. I guess you thought the movies "War Games" was a documentary?

Me, I'm pretty confident that The US military has many more than one computer system and that the ones that actually launch deadly weapons, not only are much more secure, but have actual live soldiers to decide whether or not to fire the weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 06:59 AM

My concerns over this person, whether his aspergers is a defence or not, are whatever they happen to be. I don't tend to judge people accused of a crime, I tend to respect the judicial process before saying what I think of them.

However, this issue is more about the very unbalanced extradition treaty we have with other countries, especially USA.

The arguments that have been put forward to send him for trial give no assurances regarding his possible future, as they speak of trial with no pre conditions. I have been informed that his actions could be construed as "aiding the enemy." Two things there; He cannot be the enemy when he isn't even American. Secondly, if the trial would have no preconditions, then the death penalty would be an option despite the assurances given to UK courts.

Hopefully, we still restrict our extraditions in that we never turn over a UK citizen to countries with the stain of judicial murder on their statute books. I thought the idea was to slowly encourage backward countries to give up their barbaric actions and embrace a more civilised way of life?

At the risk of agreeing with Bridge, (getting too mutually often....) I have faith in PACE as an instrument of gathering evidence to convince CPS or other regulators of evidence for trial, so sorry Bert, you are confusing criminal actions by rogue officers with how we carry out investigations. I am involved with a government regulator and we are obliged to use PACE, and since being trained and using it, I reckon it can be an excellent safeguard to protect both accused and accuser.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 08:59 AM

I am sure that he won't be charged with a death penalty offense. Deliberate Spies for foreign governments haven't got that. I do understand the concern of extraditing people charged with capital crimes when your country does not execute people. But I don't think that applies in this case.

BTW "Judicial murder" Are y'all having some sort of hyperbole contest you didn't tell me about?

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 09:49 AM

If not "judicial murder," Jack, what? At least one state governor gave up on executions on the basis that while they continued it was impossible to avoid executing innocent people. A few years ago (this might have changed) I noticed that only two countries in the world admitted executing people for crimes they committed when under the age of 18. The Yemen and the US. Now I see that only two countries in the world admit sentencing people to LWOP for crimes committed below the age of 18. Somalia and the US. Over the last several centuries, which have seen an number of long-term civilising trends, only one country in the world has gone backwards, reintroducing capital punishment after de facto abolishing it for a number of years. Guess which?

Jack's point that Pentagon systems are understandably more insecure than sytems controlling nuclear weapons may be valid. It may also be that whatever McKinnon stumbled into was trivial and harmless and hardly worth protecting. In which case the US reaction (escalated ultimately to C-in-C level!) has been fuelled more by pique than injury.

Bert: no-one is denying a crime was committed. Once extradition is off the agenda McKinnon will be prosecuted in a UK court and will have to take his medicine.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 10:12 AM

I am getting VERY worried about all this agreeing with Mither - and I wholly agree with what he says above!

Scary.

I'll be finding something inoffensive from Bozo next.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Musket
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 11:02 AM

Aw, come on Bridge. I never find your comments offensive. Total bollocks from time to time but never offensive... Anyway, I bet I agreed with you before you agreed with me, so there.

Jack's assurances may be well intended, but run contrary to the stance that a court would have no preconditions. Yeah, sorry Jack, judicial murder. I love The USA, spend quite a bit of time over there and have many friends. I also note that millions of US citizens are concerned by the use of murder as a punishment. But their embarrassment doesn't alter my stance that in many ways, The USA is not yet a fit place to try people for serious crimes.

It is not about innocent people being killed, it is killing by the state in any circumstance that is repulsive, repugnant and perhaps my new best friend can find another word beginning with R? I seem to have run out of the hyperbole referred to by Jack.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 11:29 AM

Retrograde.

And it was Bozo I said was usually offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 01:14 PM

If the extraditing prosecutor has not taken the death penalty off the table, he/she is not doing a serious job.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Bert
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 01:43 PM

...Once extradition is off the agenda...

That is the crux of the matter. The crime was committed IN THE PENTAGON So how can you justify not trying him here?

I don't see how trying a criminal in the country where the crime was committed can be considered 'a hysterical lust for vengeance'.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 03:13 PM

If you're that wound up about it, Bert, campaign for a balanced extradition treaty. But to correct a point of detail, the crime was committed in the UK. Even the US Admin is clear on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 03:51 PM

Precisely so Fionn.

Subject: RE: BS: Pentagon hacker nearly safe?
From: Bert
Date: 20 Dec 11 - 05:44 PM

It is hackers AND jurisdiction problems AND lack of cooperation between governments that are the cause of governments wanting to censor the internet.

If hackers and spammers and crooks are allowed to flourish with impunity then we can expect the internet to be heavily government controlled in the future.

Yes we do need a balanced extradition treaty. If jurisdiction is going to be determined by where the criminal is, instead of where the crime is felt then the host country needs to deal with the problem to the satisfaction of the victim.