Gary McKinnon loses extradition appeal

[DBTrek]

According to the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7532713.stm):

"Their client is accused of hacking into the computers with the intention of intimidating the US government. It alleges that between February 2001 and March 2002, he hacked into dozens of US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Defense computers, as well as 16 Nasa computers.

Prosecutors say he altered and deleted files at a naval air station not long after the 11 September attacks in 2001, rendering critical systems inoperable.

Mr McKinnon, who is unemployed, has admitted that he accessed computers in the US without authority.

But he has said he is merely a computer nerd, whose motives were harmless and innocent. He denies any attempts at sabotage.
He said he wanted to find evidence of UFOs he thought was being held by the US authorities, and to expose what he believed was a cover-up. . ."



What does altering and deleting naval air station files have to do with finding UFO's? This guy had some beef with the US government and wanted to take it out on us with his cyber-attacks. F*ck him. If he thinks he's clever enough to hit the US at a sensitive time, in a sensitive area then he should be clever enough to realize his ass is gonna pay when we catch him.

[CapnG]

Originally Posted by DBTrek

What does altering and deleting naval air station files have to do with finding UFO's? This guy had some beef with the US government and wanted to take it out on us with his cyber-attacks. F*ck him. If he thinks he's clever enough to hit the US at a sensitive time, in a sensitive area then he should be clever enough to realize his ass is gonna pay when we catch him.

He's ACCUSED of deletling those files, he claims he didn't do it, he was just poking around. Seems to me if he really was just poking around and you wanted to throw the book at him, you'd need something more concrete like say... trumped up charges of tampering with or deleting files? It would certainly make the case that he was dangerous and simultaneously deflate the whole UFO angle as just an "excuse" in the public eye.

I don't know whether McKinnon was really looking for UFO stuff or not. At this point it doesn't matter. He got cocky, rolled the dice one time too many and got caught. He deserves punshiment but REASONABLE punishment.

I do think it's interesting that it's the Navy and not the Air Force though. Time and again in the UFO lore the public goes after the Air Force for answers but on the "inside", it's the quasi-mythical Department of Naval Intelligence that seems to be at the top of the UFO food chain...

[DBTrek]

Originally Posted by CapnG

He's ACCUSED of deletling those files, he claims he didn't do it, he was just poking around. Seems to me if he really was just poking around and you wanted to throw the book at him, you'd need something more concrete like say... trumped up charges of tampering with or deleting files? It would certainly make the case that he was dangerous and simultaneously deflate the whole UFO angle as just an "excuse" in the public eye.

Obviously if he's acquitted of those charges in a court of law I won't be asking for him to be punished. I'm pointing out that he's not charged as being "some nerd who was too curious for his own good", he's charged with hacking and damaging US military systems.

What is a reasonable punishment for assaulting US military systems with intent to harm? This is something that should be included in this discussion, rather than the assumption that he didn't mean any harm because now that he's caught he says it is so.

If he is just an over-curious nerd then a light sentence is fine. I'd like to hear what people think he should face if he actually did what he's accused of.

[Live at the Witch Trials]

I think that If It was proven that he did Maliciously intend to damage the United States Defense systems he should get a stiffer sentence like 20 years to life.

A message has to be sent out.

Cyber Attacks are now a new type of Warfare you only have to look at what the Russians have done to both Estonia and Georgia.

Its Spying and you can still get shot for It.

[CapnG]

Originally Posted by DBTrek

What is a reasonable punishment for assaulting US military systems with intent to harm? This is something that should be included in this discussion, rather than the assumption that he didn't mean any harm because now that he's caught he says it is so.

Well the real question is how do you PROVE "intent to harm" versus "unlawful but harmless"?

If "intent to harm" can be proven then this is espionage, plain and simple and laws exist which should be prosecuted. It's fairly black-and-white. The issue of venue is a seperate matter and something which is much murkier.

Ultimately though this isn't about McKinnon, it's about what an absolute JOKE US military security was up to that point and about how, regardless of what they can prove, they WILL make an example of him to cover their own incompetence.

[DBTrek]

Originally Posted by CapnG

Well the real question is how do you PROVE "intent to harm" versus "unlawful but harmless"?

I think if files were deleted (files not created by Gary) then intent to harm is going to be fairly obvious to a jury. One would be hard pressed to explain why someone would break into someone elses network and start deleting files if the intent is something other than harming the target, or perhaps covering their own tracks. Once you start destroying other people's data you'v all but burned your hopes of calling yourself a white-hat hacker.

Ultimately though this isn't about McKinnon, it's about what an absolute JOKE US military security was up to that point and about how, regardless of what they can prove, they WILL make an example of him to cover their own incompetence.

I don't think there's much the US Military can do to cover their incompetence in this matter. When one reads the articles related to this case it's obvious the parts of the US military have little if any idea how to conduct computer security. Right now, if they can prove their case against Gary, they'll need to make an example of him so others think twice before picking US military networks as their target. If the punishment causes decent people everywhere to cringe, then future 'hackers' might decide that corporations are better targets than the US military . . . which will be a win all around in my book.

[CapnG]

Originally Posted by DBTrek

I think if files were deleted (files not created by Gary) then intent to harm is going to be fairly obvious to a jury. One would be hard pressed to explain why someone would break into someone elses network and start deleting files if the intent is something other than harming the target, or perhaps covering their own tracks.

Well here comes the big question: How much do you trust the government to conduct an honest investigation? Like for instance, just suppose for a moment Gary's telling the truth, how hard do you think it would be for them to make it LOOK like he deleted files to prove their case against him?

And more importantly, why weren't those files backed up? Or did they even exist in the first place? If there really is a government within the government whose sole purpose is to deny/contain/obfuscate the UFO reality, one that is willing to threaten and perhaps even execute people who know too much and talk, falsifying records and sending a man to prison for life over a minor hacking offence wouldn't make them bat an eyelid...

Originally Posted by DBTrek

If the punishment causes decent people everywhere to cringe, then future 'hackers' might decide that corporations are better targets than the US military . . . which will be a win all around in my book.

Where do corporations end and government begin these days?

[Gareth]

I think its fairly obvious that he didnt delete a thing.

[DBTrek]

Originally Posted by GSB

I think its fairly obvious that he didnt delete a thing.

On what do you base this idea?

[DamnDirtyApe]

For the simple act of knowingly hacking into the system, especially after 911, the guy is a tard who deserves at least 10-15 years regardless of intent. The US defense grid is not the place to fuck around and everyone knows it.

If it's "proven" that he actually meant to damage/harm the databases by deleting files etc. then 50+ years is about right (in principle.) I don't think he should be extradited though. Let him serve his time in his country of origin so long as they have a deal worked out that would ensure time served.

The main problem I have is that sentence disparity between criminals is ridiculous here. Serving 70 years for hacking while first-degree murderers or serial pedophiles get out in a matter of a few years due to something like prison overcrowding hardly seems just. If a rapist gets out after 10 years, then McKinnon should get 10 months at most.