Gary McKinnon deserves prosecution not extradition

Gary DID admit to charges in writing!

Great articles, I agree with most points.

However, you have incorrect information: Gary DID admit to charges of computer misuse and unauthorised files access at NASA and Pentagon.

His solicitors submitted it to High Court in late 2008 but the court refused to prosecute him sighting lack of evidence as the reason (the US side failed to provide any proof other than their allegations).

The danger here is because UK courts were told all the evidence is in US (which by US prosecution's own admission will be the 'hardest thing to prove' as they did not manage to record anything properly) Gary will be prosecuted in US regardless because they've since changed the law whereby prosecutors are not required to provide any proof when it comes to military computers - only an accusation is enough to convict ANYONE!

That's not justice. That would not be allowed in UK.

And the worst thing about it is Gary is not really fit to stand trial because of his other impairments on top of just Asperger's. He is clinically depressed and has had paranoid delusions for quite some time: he actually believes in UFO's and aliens and is terrified that he'll be tortured by aliens once he sets foot in US. That fear alone will push him over the edge - a clear case of someone being literally driven mad if there ever was one.

By Rozagy on 26 Nov 2009

I think that's splitting hairs. He's admitted guilt but the question the court's been dealing with at the time has been if he should go to America - it's just off topic. Legally he might as well have worn a sandwich board and stood on the street. If he's prosecuted (like in the headline) for the hacking offence in the UK then that's the right result. The article seems right.

By steviesteveo on 26 Nov 2009

apply some common sense

i think gary certainly should be prosecuted for hacking, however the possible sentence for conviction in the US dosen't fit the crime. The americans should accept some responibility for leaving it so easy for someone to hack their systems! 60 years in jail is extreme and ridiculous for this crime. The hacking took place from the UK, so the prosecution should take place in the UK. Also, the UK government and prosecution service should stop pandering to every whim of the US!

By lablarry on 26 Nov 2009

Three points

First, as the last paragraph say, someone should be pulled up about how easy it was to get into the U.S. Military system - but that's not going to happen in the U.K. - it must be brought up in a U.S. court and followed up there.

Secondly, I'm getting fed up with hearing about how he WILL get 60 years in a max security centre - that's for the court to decide and I very much doubt if it will happen. They do have lawyers over there and quite likely some very good ones will take the case- high profile stuff.

As for the prosecution not having to submit evidence... Sorry, but unless he really chooses some seriously bad representation, this will be thrown out - there is something about having a written constitution that is very helpful for stupidity in legislation

By greemble on 27 Nov 2009

When interviewed on tv he sounded ok to me. Can't do the time? Don't do the crime!

By CaptStan on 28 Nov 2009

Prepare the noose

Deserves prosecution, not extradition? Bull. He didn't hack into MI5/6 computers, he allegedly committed a crime or crimes against the U.S. 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. Especially now that you have leverage over how many troops to commit to Afghanistan.

Only on trial, after the facts are heard in court, might we really find out what this individual was up to. Aspergers? Little green men? All after the fact. It's a very good defense to claim a diseased mind AFTER allegedly committing a crime leading to possibly serious jail time. As for searching for UFOs? Is that what he really was doing? Or might any actions he took that will be revealed in court show something else instead of, or in addition to, the "cover story" of looking for aliens. Well thought out defense if he thought of using this as a defense prior to his actions, or was it invented by his attorney, we'll probably never know.

He doesn't admit damage but admits cracking government and military systems? Well, you know what, there's the damage. Someone, or some others will need to conduct a forensic examination of those systems to find out exactly what happened, how, when, etc. That's a cost, regardless of the original security in place prior to the break-in that will be born by the US taxpayer. That in itself is damage. Cleaning up the anti-US "messages" left behind, and just finding them, is more "damage" as time and money needs to be spent looking for the unauthorized entries. And are these really just "messages" or perhaps scripts that take other actions as well? We'll find out in court.

Barely constitutes a terrorist threat? Your opinion. The fact that time and energy, IT investigators and forensic examinations of the affected systems with people with very high security clearances had to investigate, document and then help secure the systems pulled those individuals with their very high security clearances away from other critical work needed to be done during the war against the terrorists, part of which we all know is online, tech related, or disk/encryption cracking related or steganography related, and in all likelyhood is the work performed by US government workers who would also be tasked with investigating the Gary case. As has been noted repeatedly in Congressional testimony, the US is shorthanded in many areas in conducting the types of electronic investigations required to stop a terrorist attack/cell, crack a hard drive possibly containing Al Qaeda operations details, or sift through and interpret audio intercepts.

Don't like the possible jail sentence involved in breaking into US military or government computers? Don't do the crime. Decrying the possible long jail sentences involved in such crimes won't win you any sympathy. Just don't do it. Just as Gary McKinnon should rot in prison for f*cking with government and military computers while that government is fighting a war to prevent possible weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong hands and being unleashed upon one or more US cities, or those of our allies if they can't get into our borders, just as the government is saying, better there than here, Gary McKinnon decides he has the right 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? Well, you know what? Having personally been affected by 9/11, I hope if convicted, once convicted, he is required to grab his ankles nightly for the duration of his sentence here in the US. The short sentence that it will be. Should an individual be caught cracking a US government and military computer system and that individual is identified as an Al Qaeda agent, then it's possible that the individual may receive something halfway or more than the halfway reaching the maximum sentence. Gary McKinnon otoh will likely be sentenced following some guidelines as a first time offender, and will very likely be sentenced to little or no jail time, especially if his "aspergers" excuse stands up. In all likelyhood, Gary McKinnon will be tried in New York or Virginia, both places where a liberal "progressive" jury with the same ideals as it seems as those in the UK (slap on the wrist, he's just a misguided youth, it's society's fault...) will in all likelyhood choose or recommend a minimal sentence with little or no jail time.

Just as the blind phone phreaker 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.

By storm311 on 28 Nov 2009

Nic

Personally, for the 'damage' he caused (PR damage being the main kind it seems) US sentences are way too harsh. Anyway, he committed and admitted the crime here so he should be charged here. If the US refuses to hand over evidence to facilitate a UK trial then they should let him go...

By longn on 28 Nov 2009

Medical note

Asperger Syndrome does not mean that the person cannot tell right from wrong. AS is included in the autistic spectrum; it involves a complete lack of empathy and understanding emotions. Any person with AS is simply different, not ill or unintelligent. Indeed those of Asperger Syndrome are usually very clever in maths, physics, music or art and this explains his ability to be a successful hacker.
Knowing right from wrong obviously reveals his actions to be knowingly illegal and that he ran the risk of prosecution. However, prosecution in the US appears to be almost entirely as a result of their appalling lack of security and wanting to make an example of him. But there are many hackers in the US and some of those have caused severe problems for various agencies, all of which should have had better protection. Presumably this case has enabled the US to tighten up security; but there are cleverer hackers out there that the US should be much more concerned about, and this prosecution is not going to deter them. The US should concentrate on getting their systems so secure that hackers cannot gain access let alone do damage.

By Jaguar on 29 Nov 2009

Non-terrestrial officers don't need passwords

What the consensus media is ignoring is that McKinnon found a list of "non-terrestrial" officers, as well as uncovering information about "Building 8″ -- the place at NASA where teams of workers supposedly sanitize all the moon photos before allowing the public to see them.

If McKinnon had deleted critical files and caused damage to the various Pentagon/NASA networks in 2001/2002, then a 3 year sentence sounds reasonable, I suppose, seeing as some of the systems McKinnon supposedly "hacked" had had no passwords or firewalls -- he just logged on, as I understand it, so using the term "hacker" is really a contradiction in terms.

By popeye91 on 30 Nov 2009

Spot the one who believes the US hype in the above comments...

To quote Bill Hicks:-
Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your government is in control. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!

By mspritch on 3 Dec 2009

The Poor Lad

Daddy was no doubt a drunk that beat him. Mommy ran a daycare and fondled all the little boys. Big sister worked the streets - no wonder the poor lad turned out this way. I heard it all in my 23 years working jails. Wake up - this guy is a hacker and he belongs in a crowded cell with other hackers, all spammers, and about a dozen very large computer-literate sex deviats.

By POKOman on 8 Dec 2009

Realities

The only (to me) worrying thing is that a man sat (probably) in a darkened room. He accessed a system expected to be impenetrable, left a few messeges and not really anything more. There's not really that much evidence either. In such a situation any (IT included) security operation would/should have kept exceptionally silent. Instead the might of the USA on its 52nd state (called the UK) demands in a high profile manner to extradite him.
So if he goes to the US he gets 60 years. OTOH murderers don't get that long - do they?
Michael

By photomanlondon on 12 Dec 2009

Further Bullshit

storm911 Missing a repeat of Friends because of the 9/11 news coverage doesn't really constitute "Having personally been affected by 9/11". Now f u c k off.

By dodge1963 on 17 Dec 2009

dodge1963

Can't stand friends. It's a waste of television space. As for missing a television show as being my "having personally been affected" reason, wtf do you know? With the large number of people dead and injured on 9/11, many, many people have been personally affected. I lost a friend who was one of the firefighters that rushed into the buildings that day, my cousin who worked for one of the brokerage firms was able to get out in time otherwise he would have been killed as well, and one of my business associate's wife was killed as well. I worked in those buildings years earlier, and guys I worked with were stationed in each of those buildings on 9/11. Some got out, some didn't.

I repeat what I said earlier, Gary knew what he was doing when he did it, according to the allegations. If proven, he deserves the maximum sentence allowed under the law, but most likely will receive a slap on the wrist like you hope. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Crying over the harshness of the time? Then don't do it. Simple.

"Nic:
Personally, for the 'damage' he caused (PR damage being the main kind it seems)"

Do you have access to evidence we don't know about? Perhaps you should join the defense team?

"US sentences are way too harsh."

Then don't break US law and you won't worry about how "harsh" they are. You could always emigrate to the US, become a US citizen and then lobby to change the "harshness" of the penalties, and vote out law and order type reps and vote in liberal reps to hopefully get the "harshness" removed from the sentences. Or just advocate for not doing the crime to begin with.

"Anyway, he committed and admitted the crime here so he should be charged here. If the US refuses to hand over evidence to facilitate a UK trial then they should let him go...
By longn on 28 Nov 2009"

He remotely accessed US military or government computers. So the crime was committed where the computers are located. It would be interesting to know what the law is if Gary M accessed US military computers that resided on UK soil (not US embassy soil). But that aside, just because he sat in a basement in the UK while he hacked into US government computers "across the pond" doesn't make it a UK crime, or a non-extraditable crime. As to the US handing over evidence for a UK trial, that is negated by the crime occuring on US government computers located in the US. And even if it were a UK trial, and the US decided not to hand over some evidence because of national security or other reasons, you really believe he should go free? Will you throw him a party as well?

Gary McKinnon is the perfect example. Don't hack into US computers if you can't do the time, or don't like the time. Further, it should be a lesson to all, don't hack into any government's computers. For any justification to be posted later as extreme examples of certain circumstances it would be ok to hack into government computers, there are government workers who are professionals at this, leave it to them. If you face jail time for actions you take in gaining unauthorized access to government computers, then you should consider whether it is worth the risk. If not, don't do it. If it is worth the risk, save us you whining and crying and mental retardation excuses and take your punishment like a man.

By storm311 on 30 Dec 2009