UK Hacker loses Extradition Case 370
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.'"
Nice Try (Score:3, Insightful)
You want to guess how well that flies? I agree it is stupid that there were no passwords on the system, but just like a yard without a fence, the fact the fence is there does not imply permission to run around there and dig up the flowers.
And it's the military. You really think you can poke around in the military's systems without them coming after you?
Re:Nice Try (Score:5, Insightful)
What constitutes "permission" to access unpassworded network services? Do you need written permission? If so I guess everyone who accesses public web servers is guilty of cracking them since they didn't get written permission from the server owners.
It may sound silly, but there really isn't a lot of difference between a public unpassworded service and a private service that's been left unpassworded on a public network. It's certainly impossible to tell if it's legitimately public before connecting to it and there's no guarantee you can tell that it's not supposed to be public once you have connected.
Lets say you connect to a web server - how are you to know if that's a public web site or a private company's intranet site that they didn't bother to password protect?
Re:Nice Try (NOT!) (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm afraid I don't know the specific details of the case - was he accessing web sites? Were they obviously non-public? How could he have found out that they were obviously non-public before accessing them (and thus being branded a cracker)?
if you're finding passwords and deployment details, you can be pretty sure it's not supposed to be public
If you've found passwords and deployment details then you have already accessed the server and thus liable to be prosecuted as a cracker. Please explain how one would find out _before_ potentially breaking the law that they shouldn't proceed any further.
In fact, if he wanted to do the right thing, he should have emailed a security contact for the site and notified him/her about the problem.
Emailing them saying "hey, I just accessed all your confidential data" doesn't seem like a good way of avoiding prosecution does it?
It _could_ also be argued that since these were military secrets, knowing them turns him into a target and so the best way of remaining safe is to keep very quiet and hope noone notices.
Re:Nice Try (NOT!) (Score:2)
I think that it's reasonable to assume that if the military (who one would expect takes security very seriously, and understands the concept of an 'adversarial environment') makes something available on a public network, that it's supposed to be there.
Re:Nice Try (Score:2)
Re:Nice Try (Score:5, Insightful)
What I'd like to know is, with all this talk about "security" and "9/11" and crap, why is it that the military can be -- even arguably -- accidentally cracked? What if the alleged "hacker" wasn't from a friendly country?
I don't care how good this "hacker" guy was. Yes, perhaps he should be punished, but if he was able to get at systems that are critical to national security at all, regardless of the means he used, then clearly someone in the military isn't doing his job. I think the people in charge in the military, who have a duty (unlike this UK civilian) to safeguard the American public, should be punished more severely.
Re:Nice Try (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice Try (Score:3, Informative)
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 infrin
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
You really aren't that stupid, are you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Give me a break. This guy spent at least a year (2/01 to 3/02) hacking into U.S. Government computer systems, he's 40 years old, and he's more than competent with computers. He knew exactly what he's doing, and he knows what he's doing when he obfuscates the issue by saying that he logged into systems that did
Re:Nice Try (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but I would assume that any government building with an unlocked doors during 'normal business hours' would be fair game to walk go in to. This was a publicly accessible server out in an area (the Internet) where the assumption is that everything not locked down is accessible.
Re:Nice Try (Score:2)
Re:Nice Try (Score:2)
Let's take that analogy one step further.
Just because you're at the door trying the lock doesn't mean you should be prosecuted right?
Technically, even trying the lock should be an offence no? You're still tresspassing if you're trying to brute force passwords too if that's the case (IMO that's not a BAD thing).
Re:Nice Try (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason you know that a yard without a fence is still private property is because there is social history - first around property, and more recently around 'suburb property'. So now we have an acceptance of what is private and what is not, even if it's not marked.
But, if you are in the middle of nowhere, and crossed no fence and passed no sign, you could be under the impression that you're still on public property. While you may still be trespassing, no judge is going to find you guilty. The rightful owner can certainly ask you to leave, but charges are never going to stick.
So, by the same token, any computer system that has no password could easily be assumed to be open to the public.
I'm strongly against computer owners who take no steps to mark the territory as private who then sue and/or lay charges. Anything I can access using a typical browser or ssh/telnet/ftp/whatever client is public property. As soon as it prompts me for a password, or even displays a notification that this is private, then anything beyond that is unauthorised access.
Note that shopping centers are private property, and yet we assume we can enter and move about freely. Sure, they can ask us to leave, but we work under the assumption that since the door is open, we are free to enter.
Once inside, there are often doors that are either locked or marked for no entry, and again, we assume that these areas are off-limits, but the rest of the area is 'public' (of course, not in the legal sense)
So, if from my computer I can access a remote computer belonging to the US Army, am I breaking the law?
Those who immediately say 'yes' forget that the US Army [army.mil] has a very public HTTP server which anyone can access freely.
So now the questions are (much more correctly) how does one tell whether one is on 'private property' out in the wilderness? Because that is what the internet is - a giant otherwise unmarked wilderness. Sure, parts of it look like the burbs with the on-line shopping and home-pages, but there's a whole host of other computers out there performing tasks, responding to credit, time, stocks quote, system update and various other queries. Which of those is public? Which is private? ... in my opinion the onus starts with the computers owner. If you attach a computer to the public network (aka the internet) and you fail to take a minimum of steps to state that this computer is private, than you should have no recourse if someone accesses it without your expressed permission.
It's only by putting up signs and locks that people can know which computers are public and which are not
Re:Nice Try (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice Try (Score:2)
Re:Nice Try (Score:2)
Now, if you're saying that it's not *legally* theft, you're right. But, then, there are a lot of laws that call theft something else...like larceny.
Re:Nice Try (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
If I go to jail for larceny, does that mean I didn't commit theft?
Re:Nice Try (Score:3, Insightful)
I can do that legally in real life, too.
"Well, I'm not really stealing when I pirate all these MP3s and movies. Information wants to be free."
It isn't stealing, it's copyright infringement. Big difference. I'm not saying it's right, but it isn't stealing. And with current laws, I'd probably be better off if I were caught stealing a CD from a store, than if I were caught sharing MP3s online.
Re:Nice Try (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you steal a CD from walmart it's not actually stealing? I think there's a flaw in that train of thought.
Don't be a dumbass. Theft of a physical object is stealing. Copying a CD is not.
If you don't own the work in the first place, then it's copyright infringement AND stealing.
Cite please. It's one or the other, but not both.
Re:Nice Try (Score:3, Insightful)
When you go into Walmart and pick up a CD without the intent to hand Walmart the required compensation, you deprive Walmart of the ability to sell that CD to someone. When you download music, most likely even not from the manufacturer but someone else who, in turn, also does not necessarily have the required rights to offer you this item, how do you take away the manu
Re:Nice Try (Score:5, Insightful)
Stealing: The act of taking feloniously the personal property of another without his consent and knowledge; theft; larceny.
http://www.answers.com/stealing [answers.com]
Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
http://www.answers.com/steal [answers.com]
I'm sorry but I see nothing about deprivation. You're welcome to look at the other definitions at those links and you'll see the same.
If you get your car worked on and then drive off without paying...that's stealing. You didn't actually take a physical object from that person though.
Re:Nice Try (Score:2, Interesting)
[person in disfavor of the 'PATRIOT' act] : Ouch! that's cutting a little close to the bone, don't you think? Isn't it painful enough that our government is run by paranoid underachievers who want the rest of us to be to frightened to fart?
Re:Nice Try (Score:3, Informative)
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:Nice Try (Score:3, Interesting)
Does the US ever ship anyone overseas for trial ?
Re:Nice Try (Score:3, Insightful)
He committed a crime against resources not only in another country, but of another country's government. If you mail a bomb to the president of another country, that country will ask for you to be sent over -- even though you began the crime in your country.
Does the US ever ship anyone overseas for trial ?
That's why the UK is extraditing him -- they have a reciprocal extradition treaty. If they refuse to, then the next time they want a cyberhack
Bull (Score:5, Informative)
No, they have an almost unprecedented asymmetric extradition treaty.
(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."
Re:Nice Try (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. http://seoul.usembassy.gov/december_24_2002.html [usembassy.gov]
Re:Nice Try (Score:3, Informative)
Wonder if they've been tried or released yet.
Re:Nice Try (Score:2)
AFAIK even if conviceted in the US he could be released on parole if no real criminal intent was involved.
Re:Nice Try (Score:2)
Re:Nice Try (Score:2)
In the air-India bombing case, the accused were tried in Canada as that's where the bombs were placed on the flights, not Japan, where a baggage handler was killed, or India, where the company that owned the plane that was destroyed over international waters was headquartered.
Here I'm not meaning to compare killing 300 people with a computer security
Re:Nice Try (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nice Try (Score:2)
Bullfeathers. You can still be charged with trespassing even if you leave. You entered someones home without their permission and without authority to do so. Walking across someones yard can be considered trespass. One does not have to put out a sign saying "Don't enter my house when the door is open". It shoul
Re:Nice Try (Score:2)
Not always simple trespassing. (IANAL) Trespassing can involve the
attractive nuisance doctrine.
Now if one argues diminished capacity (and that does not seem a much of a stretch in this case), and includes '70 years in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison' in the definition of harm, then I could see where the attractive nuisance doctrine might apply.
"OoooOOOoooo......NASA! Shiny Pretty Spaceships!"
Re:Nice Try (Score:2)
I don't know about the U.S., but in Canada, "dwelling-houses" (i.e. people's private homes) are treated differently tha
Re:Nice Try (Score:2)
Re:Nice Try (Score:2)
No you do not. As I stated in my first post, merely walking across someones yard can be considered trespassing. You don't have to be doing anything else. You are trespassing. There does not have to be a sign.
if you hear someone screaming for help and the door is open and you enter trying to help you can not be arested because you where trying to help.
Obviously.
now if the house is empty
Title is not quite true (Score:4, Informative)
The judgement opens up the option for his extradition.
The decision is now with our Home Secretary.
Re:Title is not quite true (Score:5, Insightful)
Much as I think McKinnon is an idiot he should be tried and, if found guilty, punished in the UK: he stands some tiny chance of a fair trial here, along with a proportionate sentence. All that crap about causing so much damage to a network that it "took more than a month to repair" (quote taken from the BBC News story) has the strong smell of bullshit. I suspect this is more concerned with the US military being shown, once again, to be incompetent and entirely incapable of securing anything than with the alleged damage this plonker caused.
Shame he didn't want anything from our own MoD: if he'd hung around long enough I'm sure he could have picked-up one of the many laptops they've left lying around over the years.
Re:Title is not quite true (Score:4, Funny)
They probably included the time it took to set up that security system called "passwords". so as to make sure no other leet hackers could break in.
Re:Title is not quite true (Score:3, Insightful)
Disclaimer (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Disclaimer (Score:3, Interesting)
Ouch (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ouch (Score:2)
Re:Ouch (Score:2)
He will learn to eat his words there (Score:2, Funny)
I really hope... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I really hope... (Score:2)
Re:I really hope... (Score:2)
Re:I really hope... (Score:2)
Re:I really hope... (Score:2)
Re:I really hope... (Score:5, Informative)
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:I really hope... (Score:5, Informative)
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:I really hope... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, extradition generally has to be approved by the country doing the booting, so it's hardly a level of bullying beyone the normal bullying associated with any form of politics. There are doubtless times when countries denied the US the right to prosecute their citizens: in this case, they didn't, because they agree that the man is a criminal and know that nothing worse would happen to him under U.S. law than under their own law.
Re:I really hope... (Score:3, Insightful)
Come again? Whose fault is it then?
I know the one-way extradition treaty you have with Norway is bugging the hell out of us, BUT IF WE GO AGAINST YOUR BLOODY ADMINISTRATION IN ***ANYTHING*** WE'LL LOOSE ***ALL*** SUPPORT FROM YOU RIGHT AWAY SO WE'RE PRETTY MUCH STUCK WITH WHATE
Re:I really hope... (Score:3, Insightful)
I really hope that's not some kind of excuse for his behavior. Just because he was in the UK and broke a US law doesn't give him the opportunity to walk off into the sunset. He needs to face the music; he willfully violated US law. Reverse the situation -- if he
Re:I really hope... (Score:2)
Re:I really hope... (Score:2)
Re:I really hope... (Score:2)
Re:I really hope... (Score:2)
Actually, yes.
As I pointed out in a post from the previous thread [slashdot.org], the US does not have a reciprocal extradition treaty with the UK.
It's funny that the Judge said: there was no "real, as opposed to fanciful, risk" of McKinnon being prosecuted under anti-terror laws, when Britian only agreed to the treaty three years ago to avoid delays in bringing terrorism suspects to trial in the U.S.
Re:I really hope... (Score:2)
Well it's definately a difficult question when it affects another country - if you launch an warhead at another country, it may not be illegal to do so in your own country but the place you launched it at is sure as hell not going to be happy. I'm not really expressing an opinion either way but I can certainly see both sides of the arguement.
Note: I'm specifically talking about actions which affect a w
Re:I really hope... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thing is, this guy wasn't hacking a UK server, he was hacking a US server, on US soil.
If he was stealing in the UK, he shouldn't be charged with theft in the US, but as it stands the crime was really committed on US soil.
I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if the server was on non-US soil. Then it'd be arguable that he didn't commit any crimes against the US, and shouldn't be tried in the US.
Precident setting (Score:2)
Peers != Clones (Score:2)
If that were true, we'd never be able to get convictions of people who orchestrated highly complex derivitives fraud or other securities shenanigans. Or convict a murderer who, though having chain-sawed a bus full of nuns in the US, is left-handed with one eye, and speaks only an obscure dialect of Swahili (or is in illiterate Romanian farmer's daughter who won a trip to New York and decided
This is ridiculus! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is ridiculus! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This is ridiculus! (Score:2)
No country in the world should extract their citizens to U.S.A.
You misspelled "extradite."
If goverments are "forced" to extract their citizens to U.S., then U.S. should extract their citizens to abroad, if citizens are accused of violating the law of other country.
Yeah. That's how extradition treaties work. The fact that the US and UK have one is the reason we're having this "insightful" conversation.
Not insightful. (Score:2)
Not as ridiculous as spelling ridiculous that way, though.
No country in the world should extract their citizens to U.S.A. because U.S. goverment says so.
Are you that uneducated, or are you just hoping that someone else will ratchet up their Amerika Is Teh Evil rating another notch based on your rant? There is no force involved in an extradition. That's the whole point of a treaty. The treaty governs the circumstances under which criminals in both countries may be extradited to the
Spock: Insufficient facts always invite danger (Score:4, Funny)
Judging by the look on his face [nwsource.com]could he be one of them? [google.com]
Of course he lost the Extradition case, we can't even transport to Mars let alone Alpha Centauri.
This whole mess could have been avoided if he had only tuned in regularly to the History Channel. [historychannel.com]
Re:Spock: Insufficient facts always invite danger (Score:2)
Don't laugh -- how much you want to bet this kook ends up in a episode of that series before all is said and done?
A couple of points (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, I've heard this story from all sorts of sides and opinions ranging from "He's a harmless wannabe cracker who just walked into unsecured
Whatever the outcome I'd like to see the same standards applied to SONY as to this kid. If he goes down then I want to see SONY programmers arrested and deported to the UK to face multiple criminal charges because installing rootkits is an offence under the Computer Misuse Act in this country.
With all these double standards I can't see people retaining any repect for justice or the law. Once governments undermine the law with such blatent corruption of principles it's a one way ticket down to social disintegration.
Field analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Field analogy (Score:2)
Re:Field analogy (Score:2)
It's only an analogy if the comparison resonates in some way, or sheds light on a situation because of an obvious parallel. In what way is a middle-of-nowhere, unmarked, empty field in any way like the inside of a government computer network housing data? To better frame an analogy for you:
"If a person walking down the street sees a building labled Government Science Info War
Hacker loses Extradition Case? (Score:3, Funny)
That dude is doomed (Score:2)
Wait and see.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, ok maybe (Score:2)
Ahem. Having a gateway of some sort (normally locked, but stupidly not, in a case like this) through which you must gain access, and then poke around a file system his not the same as bumping into something "published" on the web. Surely you're not suggesting that t
Re: (Score:2)
Open door analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
McKinnon didn't hack anything (Score:5, Insightful)
This has gotten way out of proportion. He didn't even do anything to damage US operations nor was this even his intent, he's not a terrorist and had no malicious intent. I would rather make sure those idiotic sysadmins never worked in IT for the rest of their lives since they left administrator passwords open! Freakin morons.
Re:McKinnon didn't hack anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:McKinnon didn't hack anything (Score:2)
Lay won't get off, for the same reason I knew George Ryan (former governor of Illinois, corruption scandal) wouldn't get off: They need to make some examples.
Ryan, though, seems well on his way to a new trial.
attractive nuisance doctrine? (Score:2, Interesting)
* I was looking for UFOs.
Could this fall under the "attractive nuisance doctrine"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractive_nuisance_
(IANAL)
Re:attractive nuisance doctrine? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't question what he did was wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
UFO Technology (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, the subject of UFOs seems funny, but when military whistleblowers claim there is some truth behind the technology...that is a different matter.
www.disclosureproject.org
If the witnesses on the Disclosure Project site (as referenced by the hacker) are really from the government, we all must reconsider our position. According to their claims, our government has free energy technology capable of powering the world without dirty fuels.
Think about the implications a
Re:UFO Technology (Score:2)
Yes"
I was with you up to this point.
Entering a plea of ... (Score:2)
Well quite clearly he's going for the insanity plea.
He didn't sound so smart to me..... (Score:2, Interesting)
A country that extradites its own citizens ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I left my door unlocked today (Score:3, Interesting)
I dunno. What exactly did he break into? Did he take anything with him? Is there a loss - monetary, security - directly attributed to this action?
Seems kind of far-fetched to me.
Re:I left my door unlocked today (Score:2)
Re:Onion (Score:3, Insightful)