3 ms·

I met Gary in 2001. I didn't actually know who he was until about 2 years ago after I met his mother Janis briefly and a friend pointed the meeting out. He seem

by iuguy 16y ago

I met Gary in 2001. I didn't actually know who he was until about 2 years ago after I met his mother Janis briefly and a friend pointed the meeting out. He seemed like a fairly jittery guy at the time, but overall a nice chap (as far as the London 2600 crowd went at the time). Much of the resistance like many things is not borne out of rational cold hearted logic, such as the kind that permeates through tptacek's comments. It would be great if we had directly comparable systems where we could guarantee that a US citizen would not be sent to Cuba for hacking if we (the UK) wanted to extradite them and vice versa, but the fact is we don't. The guys doing the extraditing are not the same guys handing down sentences, therefore they're not necessarily going to be able to guarantee a deal. The bottom line is that Gary did some very stupid things, has admitted to them and deserves to serve some time for those things. I don't think anyone can dispute this, not even him or his mum, as lovely as she is (she's just trying to help her son, what mother wouldn't?). The question is where it gets served, for how long and under what sentencing guidelines. In the UK this is fairly clear. Gary would be sentenced under the Computer Misuse Act, plead guilty and face close to the maximum amount of time permitted under UK law (which would probably see him free tomorrow). In the US this is less clear. Is this an act of vandalism? Terrorism? Espionage? Is he ideologically motivated? Is he the same as Al-Qaeda? All of these uncertainties cause problems. The inability of the Americans to say, "If he comes here, he will be given X" is the biggest stumbling point. I'm not trying to say that tptacek is right or wrong, I'm not trying to say that the extradition is right or wrong, I'm simply highlighting the common aspects of the sentiment towards his extradition. This is a man who is clinically depressed and is a suicide risk even here, let alone when faced with the uncertainty of gitmo (unlikely but possible) or a long term espionage sentence with no parole. Ultimately I think he should serve time, the question is under which juristiction and which law. If the US can lay it out and say what they're going to go for I think it would go a long way towards cooperation.

tptacek 16y ago
Hold on a second. It's not the case that the UK simply can't say what McKinnon would be charged with. He's under extradition demand after being indicted for specific crimes in a US civilian court, just like the vast commanding majority of everyone else the US prosecutes. This "is he the same as Al Qaeda" thing is simply a smokescreen. He was indicted for a specific crime. Here's the indictment: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/cyberlaw/usmck1102njind.html http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/cyberlaw/usmck1102njind.htm... Can you find the references to "terrorism" or "espionage" in that indictment? Or is the case being made here that we're demanding extradition under false pretenses, and that we're simply going to bait-and-switch the UK government and lock the guy up in a military brig? Because, fine, that's a viable argument for a message board, but I think making it requires surrendering some credibility: you can't cite that specific thing ever having happened before, and if that could be true, so could anything else about the US.
- iuguy 16y ago
  You've actually exactly made the popular case (from the UK point of view) why he shouldn't be extradited. There's a substantial belief here that the US is demanding extradition under false pretences and that there will be a bait and switch resulting in him getting an orange jumpsuit and (to paraphrase Harold and Kumar go to white castle 2) a cock meat sandwich. What needs to be understood is that what the people think is not the same as what the government of the day signs up to or even future governments of the day may have to deal with. Thanks for posting the indictment. That's actually exactly the sort of info that needs to be posted here for people to understand what's really happening. It's easy to get it wrong. Just look for the indictment of Moazzam Begg. There isn't one. It makes it really easy to paint a story that the Americans do not respect the rule of law when you quote that case. Bear in mind that McKinnon was around the same time. It's a case of fear. Whether it's deserved fear or not is irrelevant, the fact is that those wanting McKinnon to stay in the UK can capitalise on it. I'm reminded of the Louise Woodward case. This was a case where someone had been accused of doing something horrific but was British and as such portrayed differently in the British media compared to the US media. IN the eyes of the US media she was a child murderer. In the eyes of the UK media she had just accidentally committed acts that resulted in Matthew Eppens death. The fact is that her actions may or may not have led to his death, but when the death of a child is involved no-one stands up and says 'maybe we should all take a step back and think rationally about this'. Likewise with this case, it's not going to happen, there are too many vested interests involved.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    I acknowledge that the fears of UK citizens are based on good faith concerns. What I don't acknowledge is that they are reasonable. In this case you have a clear-cut instance of someone who has all but confessed to the crime --- a crime recognized by both jurisdictions --- and an extradition demand made under the aegis of an actual criminal indictment in a US civilian court; an extradition demand that would probably have passed muster even under the egregiously unfair terms of the 1970's extradition treaty the UK held with us. The arguments being made against it basically amount to taking every bit of anecdotal evidence about the unfairness of the US criminal justice system, in the absence of any countervailing evidence about the unfairness of the UK criminal justice system, and then attempting to apply it to this case. This case, mind you, that will almost certainly end in a guy serving 1-3 years in minimum security, as one of the most closely watched inmates of the US prison system. Again: it's not like people haven't been accused and convicted of breaking into our fabulously insecure DoD networks in the past.

by iuguy 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago

Hold on a second. It's not the case that the UK simply can't say what McKinnon would be charged with. He's under extradition demand after being indicted for specific crimes in a US civilian court, just like the vast commanding majority of everyone else the US prosecutes. This "is he the same as Al Qaeda" thing is simply a smokescreen. He was indicted for a specific crime. Here's the indictment: http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/cyberlaw/usmck1102njind.html http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/cyberlaw/usmck1102njind.htm... Can you find the references to "terrorism" or "espionage" in that indictment? Or is the case being made here that we're demanding extradition under false pretenses, and that we're simply going to bait-and-switch the UK government and lock the guy up in a military brig? Because, fine, that's a viable argument for a message board, but I think making it requires surrendering some credibility: you can't cite that specific thing ever having happened before, and if that could be true, so could anything else about the US.

iuguy 16y ago
You've actually exactly made the popular case (from the UK point of view) why he shouldn't be extradited. There's a substantial belief here that the US is demanding extradition under false pretences and that there will be a bait and switch resulting in him getting an orange jumpsuit and (to paraphrase Harold and Kumar go to white castle 2) a cock meat sandwich. What needs to be understood is that what the people think is not the same as what the government of the day signs up to or even future governments of the day may have to deal with. Thanks for posting the indictment. That's actually exactly the sort of info that needs to be posted here for people to understand what's really happening. It's easy to get it wrong. Just look for the indictment of Moazzam Begg. There isn't one. It makes it really easy to paint a story that the Americans do not respect the rule of law when you quote that case. Bear in mind that McKinnon was around the same time. It's a case of fear. Whether it's deserved fear or not is irrelevant, the fact is that those wanting McKinnon to stay in the UK can capitalise on it. I'm reminded of the Louise Woodward case. This was a case where someone had been accused of doing something horrific but was British and as such portrayed differently in the British media compared to the US media. IN the eyes of the US media she was a child murderer. In the eyes of the UK media she had just accidentally committed acts that resulted in Matthew Eppens death. The fact is that her actions may or may not have led to his death, but when the death of a child is involved no-one stands up and says 'maybe we should all take a step back and think rationally about this'. Likewise with this case, it's not going to happen, there are too many vested interests involved.
- tptacek 16y ago
  I acknowledge that the fears of UK citizens are based on good faith concerns. What I don't acknowledge is that they are reasonable. In this case you have a clear-cut instance of someone who has all but confessed to the crime --- a crime recognized by both jurisdictions --- and an extradition demand made under the aegis of an actual criminal indictment in a US civilian court; an extradition demand that would probably have passed muster even under the egregiously unfair terms of the 1970's extradition treaty the UK held with us. The arguments being made against it basically amount to taking every bit of anecdotal evidence about the unfairness of the US criminal justice system, in the absence of any countervailing evidence about the unfairness of the UK criminal justice system, and then attempting to apply it to this case. This case, mind you, that will almost certainly end in a guy serving 1-3 years in minimum security, as one of the most closely watched inmates of the US prison system. Again: it's not like people haven't been accused and convicted of breaking into our fabulously insecure DoD networks in the past.