Gary McKinnon will not face criminal charges in the UK

Good decision

At last a sensible decision but the authorities to not waste any more money cow towing to the Americans.
When they agree (which they never will) to send criminals over here for trial when their crime was committed to us then maybe we should respond likewise to them. Until then Let them go away.

By curiousclive on 14 Dec 2012

Correction

Wish there was an edit option on this site.

At last a sensible decision by the authorities to not waste any more money cow towing to the Americans.
When they agree (which they never will) to send criminals over here for trial when their crime was committed to us then maybe we should respond likewise to them. Until then Let them go away.

By curiousclive on 14 Dec 2012

Correction to last post

First line should have said:
At last a sensible decision by the authorities>

By curiousclive on 14 Dec 2012

No, expedient decision

So the guy avoids being extradited to the US by launching a high profile anti-US media campaign and using a medical condition as a sort of blackmail trump card. The UK authorities then fail to prosecute (surprise, surprise!). So effectively, should he wish to, he is free to continue with his hacking career where he left off!! (Perhaps Mr M could restart by hacking any systems used by curiousclive, as I am sure he would be honoured ;-)

By rjp2000 on 14 Dec 2012

No, common sense at last

There is no dispute that Mr Mckinnon "hacked" the US DOD computers. The case turned on the extent of the alleged "damage" caused.

The crimes were commited in UK, not The USA and I for one would have liked to see a trial here. After the extradition failed, the CPS looked into mounting a prosecution, but it appears that no evidence was produced.
As always, spurious "security" issues were cited. The DOD claimed that they had the evidence, but it was too "sensitive" to be shown to a court.....

I'm inclined to believe Mr Mckinnon's account that he did no damage. It follows, therefore, that the charges were largely trumped-up in order to justify the extradition.

So we're left without resolution.

By wittgenfrog on 15 Dec 2012

I am a UK Citizen

If I carry out an act that is illegal in the UK I should be tried in the UK.

If, whilst in the UK, I carry out an act that is not to be prosecuted here then I see no reason for extradition (you know, that anti-terrorist measure) to be even considered.

By jontym123 on 15 Dec 2012

Jurisdiction...

That is the big problem here, he might have sat in the UK when he hacked the computers, but the computers were government computers in the USA, which is a hostile act against a foreign power - and also a crime under the computer misuse act in the UK.

It is no wonder that the US Government wanted to see justice, but they should have done it in the UK.

I think the biggest problem is that it would have been embarrassing for the US Government to actually confirm McKinnon's story that the computers had no or default passwords...

By big_D on 16 Dec 2012

@rjp2000

Rabid much?

The UK cannot prosecute him, because (if you read the article) the US authorities refuse to supply any evidence of wrong-doing - in your words "Surprise, surprise!"

When the option to arbitrarily drag him off to secret prison and try him (if there was a trial) behind closed doors, was removed, the US authorities suddenly loose interest.

A campaign for justice and common sense to prevail is not "anti-US" unless you see common sense and justice as being so.

By cheysuli on 17 Dec 2012

@cheysuli

+1
Very succinctly put!

By wittgenfrog on 17 Dec 2012