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

[Vipre]

If someone got into my house and shot me in my sleep because I forgot to lock the door, it doesn't make him any less guilty.  This guy intended to hack the computers, and he did so.  The negligence of the administrators does not change that.  Even if the damage is inflated by a factor of 10, its still significant.  He should go to jail for the full sentence.

Then he should go to jail for the full sentence of "significant damage" not "significant damage to the 10th power". If someone gets into your house then leaves without shooting you in your sleep you charge them with B&E not Murder. They shouldn't face life in prison if all they did was read the labels on your cd collection.

[Nemesis]

You'tre blaming the victim for criminal's action?

No.  I am saying that he should not be blamed for THEIR failure to do their duties.  He is not responsible for the costs to put in the security now that they had an obligation to put in in the first place. 

I'm also saying that they should be held responsible not for his intrusion but for their not doing their duty in setting up and maintainingg the secure system they were obligated to by either their oath as members of the military or the contractual obligations they accepted with the job.

If someone got into my house and shot me in my sleep because I forgot to lock the door, it doesn't make him any less guilty.  This guy intended to hack the computers, and he did so.  The negligence of the administrators does not change that.  Even if the damage is inflated by a factor of 10, its still significant.  He should go to jail for the full sentence.

Sigh.

In the example  you gave the kiler would be responsible for killing you but he would not be responsible for the cost to your estate of putting a lock on your door.  He also would be guilty of illegal entry but NOT breaking and entry as he would not have broken in. 

Once more I am saying he is responsible for entering the systems not for the cost of putting in the security systems that by rights should have been there in the first place.

The decades of hard time that he is threatened with is based not on the damage he did but on the cost of them putting in the security system and doing a system audit to find out what security they needed but did not have in place.  Those things are not his fault, he didn't remove them or destroy them.  They need to be there for general security not because of any action he took and therefore he should not be held responsible for the costs. 

Toasty and Knightstorm answer me this.  Should he be held responsible for the cost of putting in firewalls, impementing passwords and other security systems?  Should his punishment be based on the cost of implementing security on systems that were supposed to be secure and were not or should it be based on his actions?

If someone got into my house and shot me in my sleep because I forgot to lock the door, it doesn't make him any less guilty.  This guy intended to hack the computers, and he did so.  The negligence of the administrators does not change that.  Even if the damage is inflated by a factor of 10, its still significant.  He should go to jail for the full sentence.

Then he should go to jail for the full sentence of "significant damage" not "significant damage to the 10th power". If someone gets into your house then leaves without shooting you in your sleep you charge them with B&E not Murder. They shouldn't face life in prison if all they did was read the labels on your cd collection.

Thank you Vipre.  I'm glad someone gets it.  Now add that Knighstorm forgot to lock the door so it is only illegal entry as breaking in was not required.

[Nemesis]

The way the "damages" blamed on this hacker are inflated reminds me of the first hacker lawsuit I read about.  In it a hacker penetrated a phone company computer and copied a document.  To get the police involved required damages or theft of enough value to make them take the case up.  So they calculated the cost of creating the document.  They took the entire wages of the author for the extended time period in which that was ONE of his projects plus those of his supervisor and assigned that as the cost of the document.  False right off as they both did other things in that time frame not just create one document.  After he was caught and charged he was persuaded to plead guilty to a lesser crime in a plea bargain but it still was life destroying and based on the inflated costs of the document. 

In a related case it came out that another branch of the telephone company had a document with the same facts and sold copies for (I believe it was) $4.95.  At that price the police would not have pursued the case and if he had been caught the crime charged with would not have had a significant sentence.

In both cases the hacker was in the wrong but those he wronged exaggerated things to get him caught and sentenced far more harshly then he otherwise would have been.

[knightstorm]

Breakdown the costs that were used to reach the estimate.  You haven't stated, how much damage can be attributable to the hacker, and how much can't.  Even then, there is still the issue of him illegally accessing DEFENSE DEPARTMENT computers.

[toasty0]

Toasty and Knightstorm answer me this.  Should he be held responsible for the cost of putting in firewalls, impementing passwords and other security systems?  Should his punishment be based on the cost of implementing security on systems that were supposed to be secure and were not or should it be based on his actions?

Without seeming to be playing wordgames here I think I have to answer your question with a question.

Would you feel somehow the a burglar that breaks into your home is any less accountable for his actions because he didn't break out all windows to break into your home?

Now that I think about it for a moment, maybe he should have to shoulder the cost of your reaction and sense of violation...

[Nemesis]

Breakdown the costs that were used to reach the estimate.  You haven't stated, how much damage can be attributable to the hacker, and how much can't. 

That I don't know but I suspect it is close to zero.  I do know that the damages so far have included installing security and since that includes security for entire networks not just those computers he admits to having entered those costs are very high.

Even then, there is still the issue of him illegally accessing DEFENSE DEPARTMENT computers.

Which no one is disputing.  Even he himself has stated his guilt of that.  He disputes that he should be held responsible for the installation of security. 

[Nemesis]

Would you feel somehow the a burglar that breaks into your home is any less accountable for his actions because he didn't break out all windows to break into your home?

Now that I think about it for a moment, maybe he should have to shoulder the cost of your reaction and sense of violation...

There you and I have to disagree.  How the victim feels about the crime should have very little impact on how the crime is punished.  What the criminal did is what they should be punished for.

[toasty0]

Would you feel somehow the a burglar that breaks into your home is any less accountable for his actions because he didn't break out all windows to break into your home?

Now that I think about it for a moment, maybe he should have to shoulder the cost of your reaction and sense of violation...

There you and I have to disagree.  How the victim feels about the crime should have very little impact on how the crime is punished.  What the criminal did is what they should be punished for.

Ok.

[Vipre]

Would you feel somehow the a burglar that breaks into your home is any less accountable for his actions because he didn't break out all windows to break into your home?

Of course not, but if you choose after the break-in to replace all the windows in your house with ones that have "unbreakable" glass you shouldn't be able to claim that expense as damages caused by the burglar. In your question (example) the man should be charged only with B&E and the cost of replacing the window he broke not the cost to replace every window in the house.

[Dracho]

Thank you Vipre.  I'm glad someone gets it.  Now add that Knighstorm forgot to lock the door so it is only illegal entry as breaking in was not required.

Actually, it would be burglary, and that used to carry the death penalty up until the 1960's.  Breaking into an occupied dwelling after hours will get you 20 years, even if you meant no harm.  Breaking in while the owner is away during the day is typical B&E with the lesser sentence.

The point?  It is the law breaker's responsibility to know what is illegal and what isn't, an if you can't do the time, etc..

In this guy's case i suspect what they really want is a loooooooooong conversation about what he did and how.  He'll probably pull 18 months or so in Club Fed.

[toasty0]

Thank you Vipre.  I'm glad someone gets it.  Now add that Knighstorm forgot to lock the door so it is only illegal entry as breaking in was not required.

Actually, it would be burglary, and that used to carry the death penalty up until the 1960's.  Breaking into an occupied dwelling after hours will get you 20 years, even if you meant no harm.  Breaking in while the owner is away during the day is typical B&E with the lesser sentence.

The point?  It is the law breaker's responsibility to know what is illegal and what isn't, an if you can't do the time, etc..

In this guy's case i suspect what they really want is a loooooooooong conversation about what he did and how.  He'll probably pull 18 months or so in Club Fed.

I agree. Never the less, there is a chance that HSD wants to know if he used Alien technology.

[Nemesis]

Thank you Vipre.  I'm glad someone gets it.  Now add that Knighstorm forgot to lock the door so it is only illegal entry as breaking in was not required.

Actually, it would be burglary, and that used to carry the death penalty up until the 1960's.  Breaking into an occupied dwelling after hours will get you 20 years, even if you meant no harm.  Breaking in while the owner is away during the day is typical B&E with the lesser sentence.

The point?  It is the law breaker's responsibility to know what is illegal and what isn't, an if you can't do the time, etc..

In this guy's case i suspect what they really want is a loooooooooong conversation about what he did and how.  He'll probably pull 18 months or so in Club Fed.

In the example given there was no breaking "merely" illegal entry and the crime was in the 1990s not 1960s so applicable law of the time is what should be applied.

The point is still that he should be punished for what he did not for what they did in reaction to it.  He is not responsible for their expenses in putting security on systems that were supposed to have security in the first place.

He has also been quite open about how he did it (perl script using a 56k modem for the connection).  Among the things he is threatened with is not being tried in a civil court.  The appearance is that they want to make an example of him and will actually go for the maximum sentence.  People get sentenced to less for manslaughter and 2nd degree murder. 

[toasty0]

Just curious, Nem. Do you see this guy as some sort of hero? A rogue of sorts?

[Nemesis]

Just curious, Nem. Do you see this guy as some sort of hero? A rogue of sorts?

In no way, he is an admitted criminal and as I keep saying deserves to be punished for what HE DID. 

What I see is someone who committed a crime, admits it and is willing to be punished for it being threatened with punishment way out of proportion to make an example of him.   What I see is inflated damage numbers being set up to ensure that he takes the fall for everything including the negligence of the system adminstrators.

Even criminals can have injustices perpetuated against them by their victims at times.  This appears to me to be one of those times.

Is it wrong to say that a confessed criminal is being threatened with punishment out of proportion to the crime?  Is it wrong to say a criminal should be punished for their crimes not for the negligence of others?

Is McKinnon dangerous enough to lock away in maximum security for the rest of his life with hardened criminals, serial killers and the like?  Is his crime in proportion to theirs?   I don't think so.

[toasty0]

Just curious, Nem. Do you see this guy as some sort of hero? A rogue of sorts?

In no way, he is an admitted criminal and as I keep saying deserves to be punished for what HE DID. 

What I see is someone who committed a crime, admits it and is willing to be punished for it being threatened with punishment way out of proportion to make an example of him.   What I see is inflated damage numbers being set up to ensure that he takes the fall for everything including the negligence of the system adminstrators.

Even criminals can have injustices perpetuated against them by their victims at times.  This appears to me to be one of those times.

Is it wrong to say that a confessed criminal is being threatened with punishment out of proportion to the crime?  Is it wrong to say a criminal should be punished for their crimes not for the negligence of others?

Is McKinnon dangerous enough to lock away in maximum security for the rest of his life with hardened criminals, serial killers and the like?  Is his crime in proportion to theirs?   I don't think so.

Please understand. I was not trying to imply anything. I was just curious and in no way was judging.

Personally, when it comes to knowingly commiting a crime a person should be ready to suffer any consequence handed them. Commiting a crime is not an act of fairness or a sign of consideration for their society or fellow, so no, a person once convicted, should have no expectation of fairness, nor should one be given.

[Nemesis]

Please understand. I was not trying to imply anything. I was just curious and in no way was judging.

Personally, when it comes to knowingly commiting a crime a person should be ready to suffer any consequence handed them. Commiting a crime is not an act of fairness or a sign of consideration for their society or fellow, so no, a person once convicted, should have no expectation of fairness, nor should one be given.

Personally I believe we should have a system of consistent rules   Your sentence should not depend on who you are or who your victim was but on the magnitude of the crime.

Consider the Conrad Black conviction I mentioned earlier.  His fraud was roughly 10 times the damages claimed against McKinnon AND he violated the duties and responsibilities he accepted as an officer of the companies whose assets he used to commit the crime.  McKinnon with 1/10th the alleged damages and no violation of his duties and responsibilities as he had no connection with the victims is faced with 10 times the duration of punishment under harsher conditions.  That is wrong to me. 

Add the Exxon Captain whose damages are several 4 orders of magnitude worse than those McKinnon is accused of yet he had no jail term for his negligence and dereliction of duty, merely 1000 hours of community service and a $50,000 fine.  Why is he not in jail for the next 100,000 years based on damages?  Why is McKinnon nor being fined $5 and told to do 1 hour community service?  The crime did more damage but the sentence was a tiny fraction of what threatens McKinnon.  This is wrong to me, I see no justice.

The fact that McKinnon was offered 4 years of minimum security instead if he didn't fight extradition shows that the prosecution knows the sentence is out of proportion.

Since he did the criminal acts in the U.K. and they are criminal acts there he should have been tried (admission of guilt means I can ignore the be convicted part), sentenced and punished there.  The whole issue would have been over long ago with less expense to everyone involved.  More money is likely being spent on getting him extradited than he is accused of doing in damages.  The prosecution could have made a harsh sentence a condition for dropping the extradition.  There was no need for this whole we MUST try him in the U.S..  Unless you think he really did find the evidence of UFOs that he claims and the U.S. is trying to hide that?

[Dracho]

Ok.. I think I get your point.  You think he should pay for the front door, if he broke it down, but not for installing a new burglar alarm that wasn't in place when the breach took place.  I can see that logic.

[toasty0]

Please understand. I was not trying to imply anything. I was just curious and in no way was judging.

Personally, when it comes to knowingly commiting a crime a person should be ready to suffer any consequence handed them. Commiting a crime is not an act of fairness or a sign of consideration for their society or fellow, so no, a person once convicted, should have no expectation of fairness, nor should one be given.

Personally I believe we should have a system of consistent rules   Your sentence should not depend on who you are or who your victim was but on the magnitude of the crime.

Consider the Conrad Black conviction I mentioned earlier.  His fraud was roughly 10 times the damages claimed against McKinnon AND he violated the duties and responsibilities he accepted as an officer of the companies whose assets he used to commit the crime.  McKinnon with 1/10th the alleged damages and no violation of his duties and responsibilities as he had no connection with the victims is faced with 10 times the duration of punishment under harsher conditions.  That is wrong to me. 

Add the Exxon Captain whose damages are several 4 orders of magnitude worse than those McKinnon is accused of yet he had no jail term for his negligence and dereliction of duty, merely 1000 hours of community service and a $50,000 fine.  Why is he not in jail for the next 100,000 years based on damages?  Why is McKinnon nor being fined $5 and told to do 1 hour community service?  The crime did more damage but the sentence was a tiny fraction of what threatens McKinnon.  This is wrong to me, I see no justice.

The fact that McKinnon was offered 4 years of minimum security instead if he didn't fight extradition shows that the prosecution knows the sentence is out of proportion.

Since he did the criminal acts in the U.K. and they are criminal acts there he should have been tried (admission of guilt means I can ignore the be convicted part), sentenced and punished there.  The whole issue would have been over long ago with less expense to everyone involved.  More money is likely being spent on getting him extradited than he is accused of doing in damages.  The prosecution could have made a harsh sentence a condition for dropping the extradition.  There was no need for this whole we MUST try him in the U.S..  Unless you think he really did find the evidence of UFOs that he claims and the U.S. is trying to hide that?

Just to be clear you're assuming the prosecutor(s) will get what they are seeking. Just because the rposecution asks that he be put away for life does not mean the Judge/Jury will agree. This is right, an extradition so he can stand trial. I'm not sure why you assume he will recieve as severe a sentence as is requested.

[Czar Mohab]

I was going to reply with a long-winded and well written almost-novel about how I feel, but a lot of what I said i can't say. Oath of loyalty or nondisclosure agreement or something like that. Basically, though, if it happens again, it will be big news. Mostly because it would be akin to getting drinking water from the air. Or a 90+ MPG SUV. City, of course. Not impossible, just not very likely.

Part of me says that this guy should get some time in jail, where I really don't care (Norway has a nice prison system, IIRC). He did break the law, after all. 70 years, however, is much too much. 1-2... maybe a month for every 100 lives he endangered.

The other part of me says give the guy a cookie. Seriously. He helped find the holes we needed to fix. Just a cookie though. One of those giant novelty ones that you usually find in truck stops or gift shops in airports, but whichever flavor he wants (He's British, right? Maybe "flavour"). Keep the cookie out of the public view, though, since he's such a "bad guy". The intent wasn't malicious. Heck, the feds should have just emailed him some fake UFO stuff. Cookie enough for me.

Czar "I'm not a lawyer" Mohab

[Nemesis]

Just to be clear you're assuming the prosecutor(s) will get what they are seeking. Just because the rposecution asks that he be put away for life does not mean the Judge/Jury will agree. This is right, an extradition so he can stand trial. I'm not sure why you assume he will recieve as severe a sentence as is requested.

Search this thread for the word "threatened" and you have your answer.

The other part of me says give the guy a cookie. Seriously. He helped find the holes we needed to fix. Just a cookie though. One of those giant novelty ones that you usually find in truck stops or gift shops in airports, but whichever flavor he wants (He's British, right? Maybe "flavour"). Keep the cookie out of the public view, though, since he's such a "bad guy". The intent wasn't malicious. Heck, the feds should have just emailed him some fake UFO stuff. Cookie enough for me.

Czar "I'm not a lawyer" Mohab

The systems attacked were fortunate in that he was not malicious and highly skilled.  So are all the people potentially affected by this.  Hopefully not just these systems but all  other government and military networks will get the hint and work on protecting things.  Not just in the U.S. either.

I say put him in jail in proportion to what he did and the ongoing danger he represents.  Since it appears the danger is low then that would mean a low security prison with other non dangerous offenders.

An example of how "skilled" a hacker he was.

Link to full article

Using a limited 56K dial-up modem and the hacking name "Solo" he found many US security systems used an insecure Microsoft Windows programme with no password protection.

He then bought off-the-shelf software and scanned military networks, saying he found expert testimonies from senior figures reporting that technology obtained from extra-terrestrials did exist.

He didn't even have his own internet connection.  I would say at least 1/3 of the people here if they dedicated themselves to it could achieve the same level of "hacking skill" in 3 months.  It is why I don't think he is really dangerous.