British 'hacker' fears Guantanamo

[rorythedog]

I found THIS STORY (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4905036.stm) and thought you guys would be interested. Who's side would you take?

[Paul]

There you have it folks, the government is actively pursuing calling anyone they want a 'terrorist' and sending them away to their gulags.

The 'War On Terror' is very much a ruse. You can't declare war on a tactic.

Just like a 'terrorist' uses terror to force social and/or political changes, the government is actively scapegoating 'terrorism' to achieve the same thing - to change social and political attitudes so challenging authority IS considered terrorism. Fall in line, or you're fucked.

[acushla]

I found THIS STORY (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4905036.stm) and thought you guys would be interested. Who's side would you take?Which side would I take?

How about if I give you one guess?

At an earlier hearing his lawyers suggested his actions were not malicious - he had been trying to expose lax computer security and access what he believed was withheld information about UFOs.

If he had been attempting to expose lax computer security then he could have informed the US of his intentions and they would have been able to track his progress. If they refused to listen then he could have hacked into one of the sites and then informed them. If they weren't listening the first time they certainly would be listening now.

As for accessing what 'he believed was withheld information about UFO's'... leaving aside a discussion as to the state of his mental health, I would submit that the laws clearly address the issue of 'hacking' and as such he broke them.

To jail I say...and the sooner the better.

[acushla]

There you have it folks, the government is actively pursuing calling anyone they want a 'terrorist' and sending them away to their gulags.

The 'War On Terror' is very much a ruse. You can't declare war on a tactic.

Just like a 'terrorist' uses terror to force social and/or political changes, the government is actively scapegoating 'terrorism' to achieve the same thing - to change social and political attitudes so challenging authority IS considered terrorism. Fall in line, or you're fucked.Seems to me you need to read the article again.:cool:

What I read is that a Bow Street Magistrates' Court was told the 40-year-old Mr. McKinnon feared a prosecution might take place under US anti-terror laws if it agreed to his extradition.

I then read 'The US said Mr McKinnon had assurances he would be tried in a federal court.' to which defense lawyers said his human rights could be breached if he was sent to the US.

After that I read about claims of a 'unsigned anonymous' diplomatic note and said Mr McKinnon was still "vulnerable" to such an order.

What I read is that Mr. McKinnon has a very good Defense Lawyer doing his utmost to create a climate of mistrust and fear based on his own paranoid delusions and fabricated lies playing to an audience that already has a built in anti-American bias.

The US said Mr McKinnon had assurances he would be tried in a federal court. What more do you need to know?

[Inthewoods]

Seems to me you need to read the article again.:cool:

What I read is that a Bow Street Magistrates' Court was told the 40-year-old Mr. McKinnon feared a prosecution might take place under US anti-terror laws if it agreed to his extradition.

I then read 'The US said Mr McKinnon had assurances he would be tried in a federal court.' to which defense lawyers said his human rights could be breached if he was sent to the US.

After that I read about claims of a 'unsigned anonymous' diplomatic note and said Mr McKinnon was still "vulnerable" to such an order.

What I read is that Mr. McKinnon has a very good Defense Lawyer doing his utmost to create a climate of mistrust and fear based on his own paranoid delusions and fabricated lies playing to an audience that already has a built in anti-American bias.

The US said Mr McKinnon had assurances he would be tried in a federal court. What more do you need to know?Exactly! You're OK even if you do think HDTV is "better"!:foureyes:

[acushla]

Exactly! You're OK even if you do think HDTV is "better"!:foureyes:
Thanks...this brought on the biggest smile I've had on my face for a long time.;) :)

[rorythedog]

US courts have the death penalty at their disposal. That's a human rights violation. Therefore any "assurances" the US might give are meaningless. I didn't post this story in an effort to determine whether he's guilty or not, clearly he is guilty. The issue is where should he be tried? Did you watch the video? Maybe the US will kidnap him. They do that you know.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

I'm against the death penalty 100% but Todd's poll (http://www.quinnware.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3097&highlight=death+penalty) once showed that we're pretty much divided on that issue. Guantanamo bay is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

[Solon]

Gary McKinnon, from London, denies causing $700,000 (£400,000) damage to military and Nasa systems in 2001-2.
This is the main point; what exactly was the damage? Forcing them to upgrade their systems? :ponder:

[Inthewoods]

US courts have the death penalty at their disposal. That's a human rights violation. Therefore any "assurances" the US might give are meaningless. I didn't post this story in an effort to determine whether he's guilty or not, clearly he is guilty. The issue is where should he be tried? Did you watch the video? Maybe the US will kidnap him. They do that you know.Acushla said it better than I could have in his previous post:What I read is that Mr. McKinnon has a very good Defense Lawyer doing his utmost to create a climate of mistrust and fear based on his own paranoid delusions and fabricated lies playing to an audience that already has a built in anti-American bias.You are obviously part of that audience, and have been since day one. I would simply suggest (yes I said "suggest") that some of the "facts" you've read and seen in the media are less than objective.

As to where he should be tried, it should be in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed, that is painfullly obvious.

That's all.

[Inthewoods]

This is the main point; what exactly was the damage? Forcing them to upgrade their systems? :ponder:That's totally ridiculous! The dollar amount is irrelevant.

What was the damage? Maybe you should uninstall your firewall and antivirus software and post an open invitation with your IP address on some forums so we can show you first hand.

Need an upgrade? Sheesh.:rolleyes:

[Solon]

Maybe you should uninstall your firewall and antivirus software and post an open invitation with your IP address on some forums so we can show you first hand.

his lawyers suggested his actions were not malicious
Surely this suggests that he did not cause malicious damage. So, if it wasn't malicious, what was it? What did he do? Did he crash the system, causing them to press the "restart" button!?

[rorythedog]

Acushla said it better than I could have in his previous post:You are obviously part of that audience, and have been since day one. I would simply suggest (yes I said "suggest") that some of the "facts" you've read and seen in the media are less than objective.

As to where he should be tried, it should be in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed, that is painfullly obvious.

That's all.

I can't really tell if you're directing the above at me but are you telling me you agree with Guantanamo Bay? Do you think there are no innocent people there? Do you perhaps think this hacker should be sent there?

[Inthewoods]

Surely this suggests that he did not cause malicious damage. So, if it wasn't malicious, what was it? What did he do? Did he crash the system, causing them to press the "restart" button!?What the hell difference does that make? Jeeez, man, when you break into a computer that does not belong to you, how can it NOT be "malicious"? Get real.

If I break my computer, oh well. If someone else breaks into my computer without my permission they are guilty of malicious, criminal behavior whether they break anything or not!

[Willow of Oz]

are you telling me you agree with Guantanamo Bay? Do you think there are no innocent people there?

Well, it saves you the bother of finding out you've locked up innrocent people if you don't bother charging them.

It is sad that places like GB exist.

[WHAT?]

I say "no" to being shipped there. Why would they?
I say that the damage done or not done, is moot! That is, if the crime IS breaking into government stuff, it's a crime!
Just "don't do the crime if you can't serve the time" as it were!
This could have been very serious, and as a deterrent to other folks who will think about trying... I'm all for it!
Could the government learn from how he hacked in? - - sure! and they should.
Will they end up hiring him to do this full time legally? - - sure, and they probably will!:silly:

[Inthewoods]

I can't really tell if you're directing the above at me but are you telling me you agree with Guantanamo Bay? Do you think there are no innocent people there? Do you perhaps think this hacker should be sent there?I never said anything of the sort, please do not twist my words to your liking. I was simply replying to your post. I replied directly with my opinion about your last post:

US courts have the death penalty at their disposal. That's a human rights violation. Therefore any "assurances" the US might give are meaningless. I didn't post this story in an effort to determine whether he's guilty or not, clearly he is guilty. The issue is where should he be tried? Did you watch the video? Maybe the US will kidnap him. They do that you know.I see NOTHING about Guantanamo Bay in that post, nor anything about where the hacker should be sent.

Please get this straight:

1. You didn't say it in your post.....THEREFORE:

2. There was nothing about Guantanamo Bay for me to agree or disagree with.....SO:

3. Please stop twisting my words and implying that I said (or that I believe) things that I neither said nor believe. It is rude, obnoxious and has no place in this forum.

[rorythedog]

I didn't imply anything man. Lighten up. I just tend to look at the bigger picture and in this case that includes Guantanamo Bay. It's no biggie. I wasn't pre-empting you.

[acushla]

Quoted from the BBC:

Mr McKinnon, an unemployed computer systems administrator, is known on the internet as "Solo".

He is accused of hacking into computer networks operated by Nasa, the US Army, US Navy, Department of Defence and the US Air Force.


Mr McKinnon is charged with the biggest military computer hack of all time
Paul McNulty
US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia


One of the networks belonged to the Pentagon.

The US estimates the costs of tracking and correcting the problems he allegedly caused were around $1m (£570,000).

If he is extradited and found guilty, Mr McKinnon faces a long sentence in the US.

The Briton was indicted in 2002 by a federal grand jury on eight counts of computer-related crimes in 14 different states.

It claimed that he hacked into an army computer at Fort Myer, Virginia, obtained administrator privileges and transmitted codes, information and commands.

Unauthorised access

He is accused of then deleting around 1,300 user accounts.

The indictment alleged Mr McKinnon also deleted "critical system files" on the computer, copied a file containing usernames and encrypted passwords for the computer and installed tools to gain unauthorised access to other computers.

At the time of the indictment Paul McNulty, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, said: "Mr McKinnon is charged with the biggest military computer hack of all time."

Mr McKinnon's solicitor, Karen Todner, estimates he could face a maximum 70-year jail sentence if convicted in the US.

She says he does not deny infiltrating US systems but says his motivation was to try to prove the existence of UFOs and to expose security failures.

Sounds pretty serious to me.

[idefiXX]

Quoted from the BBC:
.
.
.
Sounds pretty serious to me.
Sounds pretty funny to me. ;)

[Inthewoods]

Sounds pretty funny to me. ;)Nothing at all funny about it. Are you kidding?

[idefiXX]

She says he does not deny infiltrating US systems but says his motivation was to try to prove the existence of UFOs and to expose security failures. [/I]
I found it to be funny that ONE person that tries to prove the existence of UFOS can do such a thing.
As for the financial, military and image-damage it is serious, I have to admit that.
Inthewoods, as soon as it concerns your country you tend to exaggerate a bit. It's not that we are all anti-americans, but solid criticism should be allowed (and a bit of fun too ;) )

[acushla]

...as soon as it concerns your country you tend to exaggerate a bit. It's not that we are all anti-americans, but solid critizism should be allowed (and a bit of fun too ;) )

Personally I prefer constructive criticism.

[idefiXX]

mhhh, it was meant to be like :
firm adj.
robust adj.
solid adj.
soundly adv.
stable [engin.] [math.] adj.
stable adj.
steady adj.
stiff adj.
strong adj.
sturdy adj.
maybe you could add constructive to this list too...

does this explain what i wanted to say ?? :knocked-o :ponder: :rolleyes:

[Inthewoods]

Inthewoods, as soon as it concerns your country you tend to exaggerate a bit.What exactly have I exaggerated?

[acushla]

mhhh, it was meant to be like :
firm adj.
robust adj.
solid adj.
soundly adv.
stable [engin.] [math.] adj.
stable adj.
steady adj.
stiff adj.
strong adj.
sturdy adj.
maybe you could add constructive to this list too...

does this explain what i wanted to say ??

Yes.:beer: ;) :)

[acushla]

He's going home:

U.K. Will Ship Accused Hacker to U.S.

British court approves extradition request for 'Solo' who perused government systems.

Jeremy Kirk, IDG News Service
Wednesday, May 10, 2006

LONDON -- A British court on Wednesday approved a request by the U.S. to extradite an unemployed systems administrator who allegedly caused $700,000 in damage by hacking into U.S. military and government computers.

Gary McKinnon, 40, of London, is accused of deleting data and illegally accessing information on U.S. government computers between February 2001 and March 2002. Prosecutors allege McKinnon significantly disrupted government computers, causing damage that jeopardized U.S. military networks.

Full story: http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,125677,00.asp

[Sheepeh]

Home? The guys a Brit.

[acushla]

Home? The guys a Brit.Home being where he will be residing for the next 15 years or so.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

There is some interesting debate going on about the closure of Guantanamo here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4760155.stm)for instance where the UK government now clearly states that "its existence is unacceptable". I believe i read somewhere that Pres. Bush also wants to shut it down but I dont understand why the US government in general doesnt want to shut it down. Can anyone explain?

[rorythedog]

Because if the prisoners they have weren't terrorists before there's a damn good chance they will be by now.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Because if the prisoners they have weren't terrorists before there's a damn good chance they will be by now.

Hmm I've heard that before. It was Fidel Castro who said that in a very good documentary Looking for Fidel concerning the hijackings by and execution of Cuban terrorists in 2003.

[Willow of Oz]

There is some interesting debate going on about the closure of Guantanamo here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4760155.stm)for instance where the UK government now clearly states that "its existence is unacceptable". I believe i read somewhere that Pres. Bush also wants to shut it down but I dont understand why the US government in general doesnt want to shut it down. Can anyone explain?

Er, because what do you do with people who are 'guilty' but you can't prove it?
Think of it from a government point of view. Sometimes the justice system works and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes, from a government point of view, you don't care that there's only an 80% chance someone did something. That's not a reasonable amount of doubt for you. Or you have other motives above and beyond this one person and their one act. So you need something like Guantanamo. Or a hidden secret base. Maybe lots of them. But not actually bases; more like Areas.

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

Er, because what do you do with people who are 'guilty' but you can't prove it?
Think of it from a government point of view. Sometimes the justice system works and sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes, from a government point of view, you don't care that there's only an 80% chance someone did something. That's not a reasonable amount of doubt for you. Or you have other motives above and beyond this one person and their one act. So you need something like Guantanamo. Or a hidden secret base. Maybe lots of them. But not actually bases; more like Areas.

I still think that doesnt justify it. Maybe the nation in question should look at a different justice system used by other nations as in Europe. Guantanamo bay is a disgrace. Prisoners who are not even proven guilty get tortured? Come on! We know better. Innocent until proven otherwise! Furthermore, i believe prisoners should be treated with respect. Granted there are a few lunatics about but not by far the majority.

[rorythedog]

Acouple of interesting articles I found pertaining to this are US LAMBASTED ON SECRET DETAINEES (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4765355.stm) & EUROPE "KNEW ABOUT" SECRET FLIGHTS (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4641810.stm).

The second is for balance.

[Willow of Oz]

Come on! We know better. Innocent until proven otherwise!

You do know that in the US military, it is guilty until proven innocent?

[Rex_Mundi_Incarnit]

You do know that in the US military, it is guilty until proven innocent?

....

[Willow of Oz]

....
Phfoar. I have been grossly mislead on this issue.
It appears it is indeed still innocent until proven guilty. Some Military differences however, include:

Our Constitution doesn't allow evidence that was obtained by coercion to be used against a defendant. So there's a question about whether that evidence is accurate. Accuracy is the heart of due process.

These protections do not apply to current detainees. The fate of these prisoners' will be decided by military personnel and military "judges" with little or no legal training.

Another problem with the military tribunals is that prisoners' appeals stay inside the executive branch. When the administration clarified the military tribunal rules in 2002, it also announced that it could hold prisoners who are found not guilty by the tribunals, if the president still thinks they are dangerous!

[acushla]

Will he just plead 'Guilty' and get it over with...?

Britain OKs Hacker's (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/06/AR2006070601120.html) Extradition to U.S.