UK Hacker loses Extradition Case

SnakeOil Steve writes to tell us that Gary McKinnon, the alleged hacker who broke into Army, Air Force, Navy, and NASA systems, has just lost his extradition case. From the article: "'My intention was never to disrupt security. The fact that I logged on and there were no passwords means that there was no security,' McKinnon said, outside the hearing at London's Bow Street Magistrates Court. 'I was looking for UFOs.'"

Title is not quite true

[mustafap]

The judgement opens up the option for his extradition.

The decision is now with our Home Secretary.

Re:Nice Try

[drinkypoo]

I was just looking in that guy's house for a nice new TV. It wasn't breaking in because he left the door open. You want to guess how well that flies?

Actually, in the US, it flies pretty well. You're still trespassing, but if you break into a locked house, then you're breaking and entering. Physical property law reflects the very real difference, why doesn't it apply here?

Also, "looking for a TV" is a prelude to theft. Looking for UFO evidence on someone's computer is a prelude to copyright infringement, if anything.

Re:Nice Try

[Anonymous Crowhead]

I don't think anyone questions that what the guy did was wrong. The question is, should he face extradition to the US and a possible 70 year jail sentance,

You'll probably get modded for that. Of course how unjust it would be for that 70 year sentence. Oh my god - the US is so evil. 70 YEARS!

Except it's a max of 5 years. Which I would say is lenient for stealing 950 passwords from military computers. He should get 10 years tacked on for the crime of being a fucking idiot.

Re:I really hope...

[Mike Buddha]

How would Bush feel if someone tried to prosectue an American for saying that Iran's leadership was being foolish and that they are wrong - that's illegal in Iran - where's the extradition to Iran - you can't have it both ways

Your understanding of International Law is woefully inadequate/misinformed. The US has extradition treaties with countries they determine are lawful, like the UK. The US does not consider Iran a country that would respect American Law, and therefore have not agreed to an extradition treaty with them. Yes, in fact you can have it both ways.

If you'd checked, you'd know that in fact Iran has in the past issued warrants calling for the arrest of foreign citizens. Those warrants carry no weight outside of Iran and the countries (if any) that have extradition treaties with it.

Re:Ouch

[AuMatar]

The system was comprimised. You don't just reboot them- you need to reimage the system to make sure nothing was left behind by the intruder. For a military system, they probably did a forensic search to see what he had access to and what information may have been comprimised. That takes time.

Re:This is ridiculus!

[IflyRC]

So, the guy who is accused of killing his wife/daughter in the USA then fleeing to England should not have been extradicted? By your sense of logic, Britain should have not allowed it and the US should not have had the ability to ask for it.

Re:This is ridiculus!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't other countries extract US citizens?

Because punishments in US federal courts are almost always more severe. It's easier for a government to inform the FBI of a problem and have the criminal go to a US jail (costing only the US money) than to bring them to their country and have to pay for them. On the same token, Americans do not trust foreign courts at all. The short prison sentences given (check out some of the child molestation cases) and the freeing of terrorists after 15 or 20 years for murder (who would have gotten life or execution in the US) sort of fuels this view. Americans would rather pay to build and operate more jails to house foreign criminals than allow them to get short sentences in their home countries.

Re:Nice Try

[Ironsides]

Does the US ever ship anyone overseas for trial ?

Yes. http://seoul.usembassy.gov/december_24_2002.html [usembassy.gov]

Re:I really hope...

[pla]

Your understanding of International Law is woefully inadequate/misinformed.

And yours appears woefully naive. International law means "The US gets what it wants, everyone else can go pound sand".

Not saying I consider it right, just callin' it as I see it.



The US has extradition treaties with countries they determine are lawful, like the UK.

Or, say, Italy? Oh, but we just can't let them have 22 CIA operatives charged with kidnapping and torture on Italian soil.

Or Venezuela, seeking the extradition of a KNOWN terrorist the US has decided to harbor, because he only terrorized Cuba? How well would that fly if the UK responded to the US request "Oh, well, we'd love to, and normally we disapprove of cracking military computers, but well, he only attacked the US, not anyone that matters"?

Or Spain, currently seeking the extradition of three US soldiers for the murder of a Spanish reporter?

Or India, who currently wants Warren Andersen (former CEO of Union Carbide) for that little Bhopal mess?

I could go on.


So... Yeah. International law... Whatever helps you sleep.

Re:Nice Try

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Not to derail, but the definition of "theft" does include "ideas" (Webster's Unabridged, 2001 if you need a source), which would indicate that intellectual property like song lyrics can indeed be stolen.

And the legal definition does not. Movies are not ideas, they are copyrighted works.

Re:Nice Try

[shotfeel]

IOW, we ship them to France. [bbc.co.uk]

Wonder if they've been tried or released yet.

Re:Title is not quite true

[Anonymous Coward]

A. He was in the UK. Physically. Surely that takes precedence over the target of his hacking activities?
B. Your Government owns your Legal System.
C. I'd like to see the state of your arse after five federally-imprisoned years. You'd be able to fit a whole Slim-Fast tub up there after that. And what would be around £175,000 in fines will wipe him out.

Bull

[weierstrass]

>That's why the UK is extraditing him -- they have a reciprocal extradition treaty.

No, they have an almost unprecedented asymmetric extradition treaty.

The Extradition Act 2003 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. Among its provisions, it removes the requirement on the US to provide prima facie evidence when requesting the extradition of people from the UK, but maintains the requirement on the UK to provide such evidence to the US in the reverse situation.

(Wikipedia) [wikipedia.org]

This is the reason for the opposition to Gary's extradition, and that of the NatWest Three, and so on. The UK basically handed a huge chunk of sovereignty right over to the Americans, basically saying "If you want a British citizen, you can have him bound hand and foot."