[Pixalo]

A British man has lost his High Court fight against extradition to the US for allegedly carrying out the "biggest military computer hack of all time".

Glasgow-born Gary McKinnon, of north London, is accused of gaining access to 97 US military and Nasa computers.

Home Secretary John Reid granted the US request to extradite him for trial.

At the High Court in London, his lawyers argued the 41-year-old had been subjected to "improper threats" and the move would breach his human rights.

His lawyers had argued that, if extradited, he would face an unknown length of time in pre-trial detention, with no likelihood of bail.

He would also face a long prison sentence - "in the region of 45 years" - and may not be allowed to serve part of the sentence at home in the UK, his lawyers had said.

But, on Tuesday, Lord Justice Maurice Kay and Mr Justice Goldring dismissed his legal challenge, saying they could not find any grounds for appeal.


Ben Cooper, for Mr McKinnon, said his client would now seek to make an appeal against his extradition at the House of Lords.

"We will certainly be applying for this court to certify a point of law of public importance and to grant leave," he said.

Speaking later, solicitor Jeffrey Anderson said alleged threats by US authorities, including one from New Jersey prosecutors that Mr McKinnon "would fry", would be among issues raised.

That had been a "chilling and intimidating" reference to capital punishment by the electric chair, he added.

It now looked as though the US would try to prosecute Mr McKinnon as a cyber-terrorist, Mr Anderson said.

"This could lead to him spending the rest of his life in prison in the US, with repatriation to serve his sentence in his home country denied as punishment for contesting his extradition."

Mr McKinnon has never denied that he accessed the computer networks of a wide number of US military institutions between February 2001 and March 2002.

Mr McKinnon, arrested in November 2002, has always maintained that he was motivated by curiosity and that he only managed to get into the networks because of lax security.

Source : BBC Feed

[Cenobite]

Im unsure here.

1) He acted illegally, doesnt matter why he did that, he did it.
2) I think the US have ridiculous laws in this respect that arent in anyway realistic or right. You can get less time for killing someone than accessing someone elses computer? Please come on. Lax security didnt help really, they made it too easy, and yes he probably did them a favour showing their holes. He still shouldnt have done it.

So yes I agree because he did it, bang to rights, deserves to be punished.
However I dont agree, that he should serve 45 years for it and I dont think the americans intend to be fair. There have already been threats by prosecutors to "fry" him. He is getting a massive term before he has even been tried.

[Dave]

Kinda feel he's going to be made an example of, so it will get out of hand

[_MB_]

No fear. People are dying, the energy and resources could be better spent. I would assume NASA's changed their routers from "admin/admin" now. What good will putting him in jail do?

[Boofers]

Haven't heard of the man why would he do such a thing, anybody with the ability knows you don,t do it,,,,knowing the government here,,they will put him in jail,,give him a differen't name and put him to work doing their bidding. When his time is up,,away he goes,,to get a movie contract and become a gazillionire. He will only get time for how aggressive they feel he was getting into their systems. Of course what do I know,,,I am just the little guy.

[ralph]

they are probably pi**ed at the fact that they spent millions of pounds on security and one lone guy made them look bloody stupid!!!!....
I take my hat off to the guy that took balls!! Trouble is they have paid out loads of money for these so called security experts to say that their system is safe now they have been proved it is'nt. If the guy had phoned the pentagon and said "i believe your security is naf" they would have laughed at him. He goes and proves it he is a bloody criminal???... Personally i think they should hire the bloke and make sure their system is secure! Reminds me of a case of a security expert who made a point of attacking "hackers" at every point saying they were no good so a "hacker" cracked his security system...He He He. "hackers" provide a service to the computing world because they highlight the problems with systems that have not been tested properly(windows for example) Many of them just test security systems and that is the real challenge. I dont agree with the virus writers and other scum that walk this earth but they are not hackers. Some hackers are paid good money to test systems across the country and many started off like this guy. Some dodgy so called security experts have even broken into systems and damaged systems to drum up business and then blame the little toerags and show the need for expensive security software etc. Come on U.S.A give the bloke a bloody medal not a prison sentance it could have been real terrorists at the end of the keyboard not an ally. You have been given a second chance to get your system fixed!!!!....

[Dave]

Originally Posted by ralph

. Personally i think they should hire the bloke and make sure their system is secure! Reminds me of a case of a security expert who made a point of attacking "hackers" at every point saying they were no good so a "hacker" cracked his security system...He He He.

I read something similar about a top security expert chasing down the top hacker in the US. The hacker managed to hack in to the security guys laptop & ran some program that crashed his hard disk

Re your comments on employing hackers to help make things safer, here in the UK back in the early 90's car crime was rife. So a car security firm put a Ford Sierra Cosworth (very sought after, with it's top security system fitted) up as a prize, if anyone could break in to the car & start it. Within days a group of students study electronics cracked it & won the car. The firm immediately employed the guys You can't get a better test than that for new employees

[Soupdragon]

Anyone who risks the lives of others should be penalised!
Quite why he can't be tried here alludes me.

[Boofers]

Now that you've made me aware of this fellow, I saw him mentioned on the evening news. They said that his lawyers where appealing right now and that he said he was looking for hidden UFO information and that was that.. Maybe the guy had an experience he hasn't revealed.

[namllihs]

One man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

The actual crime is victimless, does this make it any less criminal?

I would think the guy knew what he was doing was 'wrong' and acted with deliberate intent.

[fionaB]

have read this with interest as this is the first I have heard of it............

my views are simple.... he carried out an illegal act towards a foreign country. he should be extradited and SHOULD be made to serve whatever term THEY impose and no wya should he be sent back here for us to p[ay for his keep when it was the American courts that sentance him.
Victimless crime.... is there REALLY such a thing.......... i dont think so.......

I completely disagree with criminals being treated with kid gloves...... he did the crime let him do the time

Fi

[_MB_]

Originally Posted by fionaB

Victimless crime.... is there REALLY such a thing.......... i dont think so.......

I completely disagree with criminals being treated with kid gloves...... he did the crime let him do the time

Fi

First - of course there are victimless crimes.

Second - criminal? "he did the crime"? He's not even got on a plane yet let alone been tried for anything!

[Steve]

He has admitted doing it so yes he is a criminal.

I think that since he is aware of the crime, aware of the country that the computers were in and is obviously smart enough to understand what he was doing then he should be tried under that countries laws and if convicted, be made to carry out that countries punishment.

A crime is still a crime even if nobody was hurt. If you break the laws (and in this case do so knowingly) then I have very little sympathy and fully support that he should be tried and carry out any court set punishments if convicted.

[dabhand16]

Originally Posted by Steve

A crime is still a crime even if nobody was hurt. If you break the laws (and in this case do so knowingly) then I have very little sympathy and fully support that he should be tried and carry out any court set punishments if convicted.

For those of a nervous disposition, the Pixalo rules can be found here

[fionaB]

Originally Posted by _MB_

First - of course there are victimless crimes.

Second - criminal? "he did the crime"? He's not even got on a plane yet let alone been tried for anything!

Ok. so what constitutes a victimless crime then??.... im not trying to be smart etc, i genuinely want to know, cos the way i see it is that everything has a consequence...... thus every crime has a victim, perhaps not in the first hand or one that is obvious straight away...............
but a victim is there nevertheless.
Fi

[namllihs]

No material loss as nothing was taken, no-one was physically hurt etc.. this is why it has been hard to prosecute hackers in the past they used to charge them with theft of electricity . Because there is no 'victim' people see it as less criminal.

Originally Posted by Steve

He has admitted doing it so yes he is a criminal.

I think that since he is aware of the crime, aware of the country that the computers were in and is obviously smart enough to understand what he was doing then he should be tried under that countries laws and if convicted, be made to carry out that countries punishment.

A crime is still a crime even if nobody was hurt. If you break the laws (and in this case do so knowingly) then I have very little sympathy and fully support that he should be tried and carry out any court set punishments if convicted.

I would agree with that, he was aware of what he was doing, and that it was illegal, and also knew the consequences of his actions.

[sejanus]

There's a lot of issues to unpick around this one. First of all, there's the question as to whether or not he committed a criminal act. If his actions postdate 1990, then he certainly appears to have broken the Computer Misuse Act and is liable for 14years in the UK.

Then there's the question of extraditing any UK sitizen to the US under that notoriously one-sided extradition treaty we have with them. On that front, if they hand over the thug that admitted to killing L/Cpl Hull, then by all means send them McKinnon. I expect to see pigs flying in formation past my window before then, however.

Finally and far from least, is the question of McKinnon's human rights. As someone said above, some DA seeking re-election has promissed to 'fry' McKinnon. I find that hard to square with Article 3 of the European Convention and McKinnon is a European citizen, not an American. After a statement like that, I also can't see how anyone can argue that Article 6.2 hasn't been breached - whether McKinnon admitted doing the deed or not.

[orangepeel]

BS if u ask me. The US should hand over their CIA agents to Italy for trial before they can demand anyone else is handed over to them. Hypocrisy. Typical US foriegn policy atm. Do as i say, not as i do.

As for his hacking. It's my understanding that he did no damage, he looked but didn't touch. This is mitigating imo. Sadly the right wing psychopaths in power over there tend to see things as black and white - at least when it doesn't apply to themselves - which would mean they take an extreme view of his actions.

As for "he broke the law he should be punished". Again, BS. 1MPH over the speed limit you are breaking the law. Do you expect the full force of punishement for that crime or do you expect to be given a warning? The punishement is supposed to fit the crime.

We've all probably had attempted hacks perpetrated by some US military computer - no doubt a zombie - but why can't we haul the US military up by the bollocks for being incapable of running a secure system. Is it really that hard? Why not follow the brit method of security - Don't connect your secure systems to the internet.

[Markulous]

Sadly, another example of hawkish neo-con American legislation. However, if we don't agree we really should change our extradition laws and introduce some sort of level playing field

Personally, I'd hope they might find a loophole in the legalities and chuck out the extradition request - but I don't hold out much hope given our current toadying to their government

[namllihs]

Two wrongs don't make a right. What if he was being tried for murder etc.

[Soupdragon]

Originally Posted by _MB_

First - of course there are victimless crimes.

Second - criminal? "he did the crime"? He's not even got on a plane yet let alone been tried for anything!

Would you like to offer an example?

[ralph]

I completely agree with you orangepeel!!! The fundamental issue is there was no "victim" in the sense of the word it just ****ed off the american government. It highlighted serious issues in their security and made them look bloody stupid. As for the governor threatening to fry him why can't he be tried for threatening to kill that is a criminal offence in this country. Can we extradite him and try him over here?!! If the perpetrator of the crime was a terrorist deliberately trying to cause major disruption/chaos then the american government would be up sh*t creek without a paddle. The american people would be asking how it could happen and the governor would be panicking that he would lose his election race. The real person who should be had up is the officer who left her system unsecure (i believe she didnt have a password setup!!!) allowing the guy to gain complete access to all military systems. 45 years in prison is a bit harsh for making the americans look stupid i'd better stop watching sitcoms incase i get locked up!!!!!

[namllihs]

So if someone leaves their car or house unsecured it's o/k for someone to nose about, in the interest of security of course. As Fiona said, he did the crime let him do the time.

[orangepeel]

Originally Posted by namllihs

So if someone leaves their car or house unsecured it's o/k for someone to nose about, in the interest of security of course. As Fiona said, he did the crime let him do the time.

Nobody is saying that. Although I'm pretty sure the police will take a dim view of anyone leaving their property unsecured. Probably even to the extent of not bothering to investigate. And good luck claiming on your insurance if you leave stuff unsecured.

I'm pretty sure if someone was caught in my house and didn't take anything, I doubt they've be charged with breaking & entering or theft but rather they'd be charged with trespass... at best. More likely I'd be told not to be a numpty and lock the damn door.


I'm not saying this guy, if guilty, didn't commit cyber trespass, I'm just saying 45 years for having a nose around is a bit excessive. And in any event, if there is sensitive info to be stored, don't bloody store it on a system accessible via the internet. That's just dangerously stupid behaviour.

There is a limit to how much idiots should be protected. After that limit, let em burn. It's the only way they'll learn.

[JMitchell]

Depending on what he did, I really do think it'd be a good idea to employ him at least so he could secure their system then leave. It could be part of some kind of 'community service' punishment, where that is it 'service'.
But I agree we should not encourage others to do the same thing.

Just shows how safe the US Space/military systems are eh...

[ralph]

If you left your house or car door open and someone had a nose round without taking anything then most people would think you prat for leaving it unlocked. If you have your wireless network unsecured at home and someone happens to use it you would have to secure it. I doubt anyone would be prosecuted for using somebody else's network if it was left wide open. Insurance companies wouldn't pay out because it's your fault. He simple accessed somebody else's system that was unsecure. I know that he has broken the law i can appreciate that but when you can get 45 years for exploring and 25 years for murdering someone the law has some serious problems and undermines the whole feeling of justice. When governments and big corporations can have someone jailed for this period of time and someone would probably get 2-3 years for the same offence if it was a small business's system that was hacked something is seriously wrong. The problem is the guy upset the wrong people. That is not justice it's abuse of power, it's media exploitation, it's a popularity contest. If someone murders an adult the public generally want 10+ years, if someone murders a child the public wants corporal punishment back. The purpose of the law is to be the judge, the crime is the same even if feeling wants more. Justice should work both ways, an institution of fairness. Public or emotional feeling should not come into play. If the person appointed starts playing to the public then he should be removed from office and not have anything to do with the trial. The guy will not get a fair trial in america but then we should not have to fund a trial over here. He should be tried in this country at the american's expense. The americans should apoligise to their people for leaving their system unsecure. Fair trial fair cop!!!!!....

[Dave]

Wondered if our American members could share how the media is portraying this over there ?

[Steve]

What amazes me is the way things are getting confused in this thread. I don’t think anyone is saying that he should get 45years for cyber trespass when others ‘only’ get 25 for murder. What we are saying is that if he is guilty then he should be made to do the time as a punishment for his crimes. It so happens that his crimes were against the American government and as is their way, they set the punishment terms. I am no hacker but I am aware that if I commit crimes against a foreign government then I could be extradited and tried under their laws, maybe he should have thought about that while he was 'just looking around'

It is blatantly obvious that he was aware that he was acting illegally and against a foreign country. I have no sympathy at all for him and believe that he should be extradited and tried. The fact that the Americans may refuse other legitimate requests for extradition of suspected criminals from there to here is a completely separate discussion, and two wrongs don’t make a right

Also with regard to speeding comparison…I have broken the law by speeding and when I was caught I took the penalty and fine on the chin. I was aware of the law and the punishment and I am the last person that you will hear whine about the justice that was served against me. It doesn’t matter if you break the speed limit by 1mph or 30mph the fact that you broke it means that if you get caught you should be prepared to take the punishment, occasionally someone gets let off, good for them but they still broke the law and should consider themselves lucky to have got away with it, not expect just to be ‘talked to’. I am sorry but that comparison just doesn’t work.

[ralph]

Originally Posted by Steve

I am no hacker but I am aware that if I commit crimes against a foreign government then I could be extradited and tried under their laws, maybe he should have thought about that while he was 'just looking around'

But if you were that hacker would'nt you hope for a fair trial? Both britain and america hold justice as their core values but when one of their own district attorneys wants to "fry" someone justice becomes questionable. I think he should be punished!!! but if he was speeding then he should get 3 points and a £60 fine not life imprisonment!!!

[Boofers]

Originally Posted by Dave

Wondered if our American members could share how the media is portraying this over there ?

auhh, wellll,,"yea beatles"

Ok, I have only like said 3 book stands ago,,,that they gave him 4 seconds of airtime and said he was looking for hidden UFoooo documents. Haven't heard a thing sence. This thread is quite interesting to read and see how the rest of the family feels about how human we are.

My put on what I know is that NATO has some pull and a stake in all the north atlantic security,,,so maybe they are behind all of this in a dark corner making sure you know that they will catch you if you come..