Topic: Briton claims he broke into Pentagon, NASA computers to find UFO data

[toasty0]

LONDON - Britain's top court refused Wednesday to stop the extradition to the U.S. of a British hacker accused of breaking into Pentagon and NASA computers — something he claims to have done while hunting for information on UFOs.

Gary McKinnon, 42, faces charges in the United States for what officials say were a series of cyber attacks that stole passwords, attacked military networks and wrought hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of computer damage.

The decision by Britain's House of Lords was his last legal option in this country, but his lawyer said she would appeal his case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

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

"The consequences he faces if extradited are both disproportionate and intolerable and we will be making an immediate application to the European court to prevent his removal," Karen Todner said after McKinnon's appeal was rejected. "We believe that the British government declined to prosecute him to enable the U.S. government to make an example of him."

McKinnon's supporters say he faces unjust treatment and the prospect of a harsh sentence at the hands of a U.S. court and want him freed — or at least tried in Britain.

Prosecutors allege that McKinnon hacked into more than 90 computer systems belonging to the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Department of Defense and NASA between February 2001 and March 2002, causing $900,000 worth of damage.

McKinnon has acknowledged accessing the computers, but he disputes the reported damage and said he did it because he wanted to find evidence that America was concealing the existence of aliens.

McKinnon was caught in 2002 after some of the software used in the attacks was traced back to his girlfriend's e-mail account.

[Dash Jones]

People would be outraged by another nation wanting to try a US citizen in their court...so in that light...

I think the US has no right to try him in their court.

Perhaps they should beef up their security instead.

Oh...and now to the more important thing.  Did he find anything?

[toasty0]

People would be outraged by another nation wanting to try a US citizen in their court...so in that light...

I think the US has no right to try him in their court.

Perhaps they should beef up their security instead.

Oh...and now to the more important thing.  Did he find anything?

I think we should ask agent Scully.

[knightstorm]

People would be outraged by another nation wanting to try a US citizen in their court...so in that light...

I think the US has no right to try him in their court.

Perhaps they should beef up their security instead.

Oh...and now to the more important thing.  Did he find anything?

And other nations would be outraged if we tried to prevent the extradition of one of our citizens who committed a serious crime in another country.  The US does have a right to try someone for crimes which caused damage in its territory.  Its called extradition.  The US as well as most countries will extradite a citizen who has committed a crime in another country.  For example, we arrested Dog Chapman and began the legal process of extraditing him at the request of the Mexican government before they agreed to drop the charges.  The US also has a treaty with Britain which mutually expands this right.  Among Western nations, the big exception is France which protects its rapist pedophiles.  Another slight exception is that if someone is wanted for a capital offense, the Europeans won't extradite them unless they have a guarantee that they will not face the death penalty.

[knightstorm]

Besides, you don't need to hack the pentagon to find proof of UFOs.  All you need to do is contact the prophet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrQsQQ83Wrg

[Dash Jones]

He wasn't in the US at the time of the crime.

[Dash Jones]

The prophet eh?

I wonder if he has any relation to the Prophets!?

You know, from DS9?

[knightstorm]

He wasn't in the US at the time of the crime.

Under that logic, if someone launched a missile at a US embassy, we wouldn't be able to try them in American courts.  Whether he was on US soil or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that he attacked property of the United States government.

[Nemesis]

Under that logic, if someone launched a missile at a US embassy, we wouldn't be able to try them in American courts.  Whether he was on US soil or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that he attacked property of the United States government.

This goes into a very grey area.  If you send an E-Mail that contains things illegal in another country to that country did you commit a crime (for example some Nazi related stuff in Germany would be illegal, E-Bay has had trouble over that).  Would you expect to be extradited for it?  Should you be.

[Nemesis]

This case has been going on for years and I read about it some time ago. One of the problems with it is that the charges are based on the "damage" done.  The damage is inflated by including the cost to seal the security flaws that he used, flaws that were not of his creating and were there before he used them.  It also includes the cost of them doing a security survey of their site to fix things, a survey that they badly needed to do to secure it regardless of his actions.  These costs being counted as damages inflates his potential punishment.

I haven't heard that the system administrators have been punished in any way for not maintaining security on systems that wer supposed to be secure.    They should definitely be in a lot of trouble IF they are still employed there instead of being fired for incompetence.

[knightstorm]

Under that logic, if someone launched a missile at a US embassy, we wouldn't be able to try them in American courts.  Whether he was on US soil or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that he attacked property of the United States government.

This goes into a very grey area.  If you send an E-Mail that contains things illegal in another country to that country did you commit a crime (for example some Nazi related stuff in Germany would be illegal, E-Bay has had trouble over that).  Would you expect to be extradited for it?  Should you be.

It depends on whether there's an extradition treaty. If there isn't then you can only be extradited for something that's illegal in your home country.  Either way, this is a moot point because he did cause real damage, and he hacked the defense department computers for an allied nation.  As the article pointed out however, the EU and the US don't see eye to eye on cruel and unusual punishment.  For example they foolishly believe that the extended periods of waiting on death row that criminals face in the American system is cruel and unusual despite the fact that the only reason criminals stay on death row so long is because out of the interest of fairness we give them every available opportunity to overturn their sentence before we execute them.

[Dash Jones]

Some nations also believe execution is ALSO a cruel and unusual punishment.

However, trying to keep it light, since this isn't H&S, with all that, I'm still wondering if he found anything on UFO's and extraterrestrial life.

[knightstorm]

Some nations also believe execution is ALSO a cruel and unusual punishment.

However, trying to keep it light, since this isn't H&S, with all that, I'm still wondering if he found anything on UFO's and extraterrestrial life.

That might be the case, but the European Court on human rights actually heard a case from an American who killed his girlfriend and then fled to Europe, and tried to fight extradition on the grounds that it was cruel and unusual punishment.  Not discussing whether the death penalty itself was cruel and unusual, the court ruled that the waiting periods in the United States met the criteria.  However, as I have stated a lot of times, people who compare civil rights in the US to other countries tend to take things out of context which is what annoys me.  That waiting period is one example.  I would name others, but you are right we should keep this to H&S.

As for your second point, I already told you, Prophet Yahweh seer of Yahweh and summoner of UFOs has already shown that they do exist.  Just watch the youtube link.

[Nemesis]

Either way, this is a moot point because he did cause real damage,

What real damage?  As I recall the "damage" listed when I read about it (back when it happened) was all in the form of expenses to actually secure the system the way that they were required to do.  I don't see that as damage.   So what did he do that constituted damage?

The hacking in I agree is a crime and should not have been done regardless of how secure the system was and is or should be punishable.  But compare his potential sentence for what is essentially tresspassing to those who commit real damaging crimes and it is out of line.

Consider Conrad Black facing 6.5 years in prison for his convictions on fraud ($6.1 million), obstruction of justice and other charges.  In minimum security.  While this hacker is being threatened with 70 years in maximum security for damages (that I consider inflated) that are  not even of the same order of magnitude.  To me obstruction of justice and the betrayal of trust by an executive like Black to enrich themselves at the expense of those they have a legal, ethical and moral obligation to serve is a far worse crime than computer tresspassing.  Yet somehow this computer tresspasser is threatened with a far worse punishment.

[knightstorm]

HE HACKED DEFENSE DEPARTMENT COMPUTERS.  That sort of thing can endanger lives.

[Nemesis]

HE HACKED DEFENSE DEPARTMENT COMPUTERS.  That sort of thing can endanger lives.

Endangered, perhaps.  But no actual harm  to people or equipment has been shown as far as I know.   Is it worth a jail sentence of 60 - 70 years in maximum security?  Is that an appropriate magnitude to the sentence?   Is counting the expense of putting in place the type of security that should have been there in the first place reasonable to count as damage done by him?

The system operators did not operate secure systems, which in fact was their job.  Some of the systems he is accused of hacking into had BLANK administrator passwords, no firewall and no other protections.  The operators were endangering lives by not doing their job how many decades would you send them to jail for endangering peoples lives?  Negligence or incompetence either way they deserve some form of punishment.

I'm not arguing that he does not deserve punishment merely that the magnitude and type of sentence he is threatened with is disproportionate to the actual crime.

[toasty0]

Either way, this is a moot point because he did cause real damage,

What real damage?  As I recall the "damage" listed when I read about it (back when it happened) was all in the form of expenses to actually secure the system the way that they were required to do.  I don't see that as damage.   So what did he do that constituted damage?

The hacking in I agree is a crime and should not have been done regardless of how secure the system was and is or should be punishable.  But compare his potential sentence for what is essentially tresspassing to those who commit real damaging crimes and it is out of line.

Consider Conrad Black facing 6.5 years in prison for his convictions on fraud ($6.1 million), obstruction of justice and other charges.  In minimum security.  While this hacker is being threatened with 70 years in maximum security for damages (that I consider inflated) that are  not even of the same order of magnitude.  To me obstruction of justice and the betrayal of trust by an executive like Black to enrich themselves at the expense of those they have a legal, ethical and moral obligation to serve is a far worse crime than computer tresspassing.  Yet somehow this computer tresspasser is threatened with a far worse punishment.

You're playing lawyer here Nem. The truth of it is that what he did was reckless and possibly placed millions of people in harms way. For that he should cools his heels for a very long time.

[Dracho]

The litmus test, IMHO is if we would extradite an American citizen to them if he did the same thing to their systems.  If the answer is yes, hand him over.

[knightstorm]

The litmus test, IMHO is if we would extradite an American citizen to them if he did the same thing to their systems.  If the answer is yes, hand him over.

Don't know for sure until it happens, but the answer is probably yes.  Although it really depends on the country he's hacking.  If its someone we don't like, I imagine we'ld probably try to protect them, but if its a close ally like the UK, he's up the river without a paddle.

[Nemesis]

You're playing lawyer here Nem. The truth of it is that what he did was reckless and possibly placed millions of people in harms way. For that he should cools his heels for a very long time.

I haven't seen anything that indicates the had access to let alone used or damaged anything that could endanger millions of lives.   What does the military put on internet connected systems that could do that and why haven't any terrorist hackers used them yet? 

The system operators by not even using basic security on their systems (no firewalls and blank admin passwords remember) left the systems under their care open to malevolent hackers, were they not reckless and endangering those very same people while betraying the trust that they accepted with the job?  Where is their punishments?

Other people recklessly endanger the lives of others but we don't give them long jail terms, especially on the 1st offense.  Drunk driving and flying for example.  How long was the jail sentence of the Exxon Valdez captain?  His recklessness (DID not COULD have) cost Exxon billions and destroyed businesses and lively hoods for people ($50,000 fine and 1000 hours community service over 5 years).  The damage this captain did was 3 orders of magnitude higher (at least maybe more) yet his sentence includes no jail time. 

I still assert that based on what we know was done that the threatened sentence is far disproportianate, both in time and the maximum security  jail aspect for the damage he caused compared to other criminals. Child molesters, rapists and killers get lower sentences.