8 ms·

Gary McKinnon saved from extradition to the US

189 points by RobAley 14y ago

mapleoin 14y ago
off-topic: That House of Commons seems like a really funny business. Why are those people standing up after someone has spoken. Is it something like a +1 mechanism? Is anyone recording it? The whole scene seems like something out of Alice in Wonderland.
- jgrahamc 14y ago
  They wish to speak and standing up is the signal to the Speaker of the House (http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/the-role-of-the-speaker/role-of-the-speaker/ http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/the-ro...) that they have something to say.
  - Toenex 14y ago
    They also mainly quite old and a little confused, probably keep think that the national anthem is playing and are standing to honour Her Majesty.
- meaty 14y ago
  Yes it's absolutely crazy. It's like a look back to the 1700's. You can watch it all live here (you may need a proxy to get it outside the UK): http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_parliament/watchlive http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_parliament/watchlive
  - UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
    How would you run it? The houses actually run fairly well, and part of the reason why is traditions like this. I would happily take this over the American system for example, where there is no back and forward because people have to go to a microphone to talk...
    - RobAley 14y ago
      If you talk to some backbench MPs (usually opposition and/or minority parties) you will find that they (claim to) struggle to get the (partisan) speaker to allot time for them to speak, particularly in high-profile debates and sessions.
      - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
        There are over 600 MPs, that's always going to be an issue. It's worth noting that the chamber of the house isn't the only way to influence proceedings. Recent years have seen a return to prominence of many of the select committees comprised of backbench MPs selected independently of the party whips. The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee was front and centre during the phone hacking scandal and any bill put before parliament will have gone in front of a committee before it gets there.
        RobAley 14y ago
        > There are over 600 MPs, that's always going to be an issue. I think their complaint isn't that they were struggling due to shear numbers, but due to the partisan speaker and deference to party leaders.
        Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
        The current speaker was the first the be voted in in an exhaustive ballot suggesting that he's likely had more support (or at least more consensus) than previous speakers. Where he's disliked it's largely by those in his own party who don't like one or more of his own political move from the right towards the centre (and not just since being speaker), his Labour supporting wife or in some cases either his more humble beginnings than some of his Conservative colleagues or his own apparent ego. To me much of the criticism seems to stem from personal and political divisions within the Conservative party as Bercow's performance. You're never going to get an entirely impartial speaker given that this is someone who ran as a political candidate for one party or another but I think you need to consider the criticisms in the light of who it's coming from.
- sturadnidge 14y ago
  I believe it is to signal that they want to speak next.
- estel 14y ago
  They stand up to "catch the speakers eye" and indicate to the Speaker (the chairperson who mediates the debate) that they would like to ask a question of the home secretary.
- RobAley 14y ago
  The people standing up want to talk next. The Speaker chooses who does speak next, in a kind of opaque way. Senior gov officials are usually favoured over back-benchers.
- inglesp 14y ago
  I had a Russian lecturer at my (British) university, who was fond of telling us that Russian lectures are like the British parliament -- people standing up and shouting all the time -- while British lectures are like the Russian parliament -- everybody sitting in cowed silence.
  - RobAley 14y ago
    The character of debates in the British parliament changed when it was Televised. Prior to that, it wasn't usual to see MPs having a nap, a bit like during many lectures I went to...
    - dazzawazza 14y ago
      If I remember correctly the legislation allowing televising of the HoC, HoL and Committee chambers state that they are not allowed to show napping members. In general they are more on their toes but you do occasionally catch a long distance shot (from above the main lobby entrance) of someone waking up particularly at the stupid late night debates they have. It's the same law that doesn't allow the footage to be used for parody.
      - Zak 14y ago
        So if I, as an American use the footage for parody, will they try to extradite me to the UK?
        dazzawazza 14y ago
        There is, somewhere on the internet, a Daily Show episode where even they respect the law and don't use the footage. I imagine they would have to sign a contract to get the footage and would be bound by the draconian idea that men and women sitting two swords length apart across a chamber guarded by men in tights are not to be laughed at.
      - jiggy2011 14y ago
        Wow, I wasn't aware of such a law. Youtube is in a lot of trouble..
- dcminter 14y ago
  Until relatively recently two collapsible opera hats were maintained for the use of members who wished to raise a point of order. I think even the Reverend Dogson might have considered that a little peculiar.
  - arctangent 14y ago
    This was put to an end by "Early Day Motion 1623: Top Hats and Parliamentary Procedure" [1] Quote: "That this House believes the procedure whereby honourable Members are required to wear a top hat or other suitable head covering during certain proceedings on the floor of the House should be ended; calls upon the Select Committee on Procedure to recommend ending the practice; and believes that this whole procedure brings the House into disrepute across the world." [1] http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/commons/early-day-motions/edm-detail1/?session=1992-93&edmnumber=1623&orderby=DateSigned&orderdirection=Asc http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-pape...
meaty 14y ago
The right decision. I'm frankly surprised and pleased. What happens now?
- belorn 14y ago
  Now a political debate hopefully starts around the subject of extraditions from the UK. Hopefully, things like this, the Assange extradition, and other high publicity cases will put some political pressure on the process, and improves them.
  - objclxt 14y ago
    Assange is completely different - it's a totally separate legal process / thing. Not all extraditions are the same. What this will trigger is a discussion around the UK/US extradition treaty, but that's got nothing to do with Assange right now. If the US had actually issued an extradition request then it would be important. The European Arrest Warrant process, which is what Assange is wanted under, is rather different and really not subject to the same kind of political wrangling, mainly because it's part of a raft of EU measures to ensure free trade and borders (if it helps you can think of the EAW as part of a trade: EU citizens get to live and work in any EU country without a permit or visa, but to balance that there needs to be a system to allow swift repatriation of criminal suspects). There is very little scope for political wrangling with regards to European Arrest Warrants - the same can't be said for individual extradition treaties.
andrewcooke 14y ago
demand for more on the news seems to have killed the guardian. bbc now down (or very slow) too.
- sim0n 14y ago
  Both are working fine for me (UK).
  - andrewcooke 14y ago
    ok for me too now (was offline the last 30m). maybe it was something else, but other sites seemed ok. anyway, thanks for the report.
    - mkl 14y ago
      Rather off topic by now, but http://www.isup.me http://www.isup.me is useful in situations like this.
sturadnidge 14y ago
Whilst I agree this is the correct decision, I'm having trouble reconciling how someone who has admitted to accessing a US government network illegally won't be extradited, whereas someone denying an accusation of domestic crime was to be extradited to Sweden? EDIT: Apologies, forgot the part about Assange not being a British citizen.
- estel 14y ago
  Presuming that you're talking about Assange, there are hugely different considerations when Assange isn't a British citizen.
  - sturadnidge 14y ago
    Ah yes, I stand corrected.
    - RobAley 14y ago
      It doesn't actually affect the decisions too much in these particular cases. The cases for and against extradition are invariably fought over issues of human rights, and the law is quite clear that British and EU statutes apply equally to everyone regardless of nationality, at least in considering most of these issues. While the person is in the UK/EU, the national governments cannot use their nationality to overrule any HR arguments against extradition, unless the law specifically prescribes a difference course of action based on nationality, which must not unduly remove any of their human rights.
- RobAley 14y ago
  Aside from both cases being extremely political, the reasons that both were/are fighting extradition are quite different (mental illness vs. political machinations). Extradition to EU countries is also often viewed differently to the US by the public and politicians, as we both fall under EU law and it is perhaps more like transferring a suspect between states in the US. In neither case is our (UK) government acting in a fair, impartial and democratic way. /sweeping statement
- 14y ago
jeswin 14y ago
I have been following this for many years. Nobody in England wanted him to be extradited. Most Americans seemed to be against extradition. The rest of the world didn't want it either. I am surprised this went on for so long. EDIT: My bad. UK, not England!
- RobAley 14y ago
  I'm not. They had to make sure they could get some terrorists and bankers extradited before they could cave on this and change the rules.
  - hackerboos 14y ago
    Alleged 'terrorists'. The extradition treaty means we never got to see the evidence.
    - RobAley 14y ago
      Apologies, I was being slightly sarcastic, they were indeed only alleged criminals . The bankers were proven bankers, which isn't usually a crime (though at times perhaps should be), and also hadn't been found guilty in a court of law. Edit: Apologies to bankers everywhere and their supporters, sarcasm turned off for the rest of the day.
      - alexchamberlain 14y ago
        Look some bankers have made some mistakes. I'm sure you were lovely to the one that offered you a mortgage. What about the one that sold that mortgage as part of a pool to another so they could offer your neighbour a mortgage? We need bankers...
        RobAley 14y ago
        Yeah, I was being sarcastic and generalising for effect. That said, I was pretty harsh to the one that sold me a mortgage, her incompetence at completing the paperwork and delays nearly cost me the chance to buy my house. In general most of my interactions with bank staff have been poor or at least just adequate. I've never had a particularly "good" experience with one. I keep using them, because as you say, we need them. Well, we need bankers. Just perhaps not the ones we've got.
alexchamberlain 14y ago
Hooray. Ignoring his mental illness, he committed a crime under UK law on UK soil and should be prosecuted in the UK for that.
- RobAley 14y ago
  His "victim" was in the US and he knew that, so I don't think its so simple. The problem I, and I think most people, have is twofold : 1 - There was and is no clear legal framework for intro-jurisdictional crimes like this. The law should be settled and clear before it is applied, otherwise people cannot asses whether their actions will break a law. 2 - The US criminal charges and punishments with which he is threatened appear to be grossly disproportionate to his actual actions. This wouldn't be an issue if he were guaranteed a fair trial, but the connection between the "victim" and the "prosecutor" (ie. both US gov) and statements made by the prosecution and US Government suggest that he may not get a fair trial.
  - alexchamberlain 14y ago
    The location of his victim is irrelevant IMHO. He was using a computer in the UK. Under the Computer Misuse Act, one must not use a computer to access another computer without prior authorisation of the owner, which he did not have. Therefore, he has committed a crime under said act in the UK. I feel quite strongly about this, because if I were to ever commit such a crime for whatever reason, I would want to be prosecuted in the UK. Therefore, I should expect the UK to prosecute people in a similar situation. There was a number of UK online gambling website owners arrested in the US for "selling" their services to US citizens. They were providing a service to UK citizens on UK (or at least non-US) servers and, at the time, didn't prevent people from signing up based on their IP (or other geographical information). The US felt it was their right to step in... * I am not making an assertions on anyone's guilt, since they've never actually been proved in court.
    - RobAley 14y ago
      > I would want to be prosecuted in the UK. The proper place to be prosecuted is the one in which the wider interests of justice and society are served. To that end the location of the victim and/or the perpetrator are both irrelevant. It is a very nuanced question and perhaps varies a lot depending on the (alleged) crime. Garry's case is different to the gambling one you cite, he specifically chose and targeted a "victim" he knew to be in the US, the gambling websites didn't. A parallel case may be where scammers in one country where the law doesn't prohibit it specifically target victims in another, remotely. In that case there would be no re-dress for the victims and justice and society would not benefit from your jurisdictional preference. Until all countries have equal and fair laws, or there are definite and settled frameworks for jurisdiction, the cases will have to be judged on a case by case basis. Which is no good and leads to travesties like Garry's case. If you read my other comments, I am in favour of todays decision. But it's not a cut and dried case either way.
andrewnez 14y ago
Now can we have the same for Richard O'Dwyer please.
- harel 14y ago
  Amen to that.
djhworld 14y ago
I wonder if this will sour relations between the UK and the USA.
- Quarrelsome 14y ago
  The BBC reported that in a recent meeting between Obama and Cameron this was discussed. This suggests that US interest in extraditing him had cooled and that they wouldn't be too upset with this outcome.
belorn 14y ago
Interesting to hear that even government voices is critical to the view to have a mutually respect for every other countries laws.
- bruceboughton 14y ago
  What do you mean?
unix-dude 14y ago
Im glad it turned out this way. He committed a crime, yes, but I can't help but think the US would have handed him a far too harsh sentence.
marcuspovey 14y ago
Given that he supposedly cracked secure computers, which I would hope was no simple matter, the US shouldn't be extraditing him to face prison. They should give him a job.
- b6 14y ago
  IIRC, his main technique was to log in to Windows NT boxes with null Administrator passwords.
- andyn 14y ago
  He claims a Perl script that found computers with default or blank passwords. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Statements_to_the_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Statements_to_th...
- danielweber 14y ago
  No they shouldn't. Apart from the normal reasons you don't hire thieves to guard your stuff[1], he is too mentally unstable to be trusted with anything. Remember, it was his mental instability that probably saved him from extradition. [1] Yeah, it makes for great Hollywood stuff, but that's Hollywood.
harel 14y ago
Theresa May had partially and only partially redeemed herself in my eyes. I was so disappointed by the Richard O'Dwyer case that I didn't think her capable of any moral decision. One more move Mrs May, and I, and many more will believe you are a thinking human being.
- nicholassmith 14y ago
  She's a thinking political creature. There'd have been enough outrage (especially from the DM) that she'd have never weathered the storm.
- mibbitier 14y ago
  Her hands were probably tied at the time, due to Abu Hamza etc which has now been dealt with. I fully expect her to clarify the position for Richard O'Dwyer soon and can't see him ever being extradited.
  - harel 14y ago
    I hope this is the case. It does make sense considering we're Post-Hamza now.
- ed_blackburn 14y ago
  I think this is all about the publicity. Otherwise she would have done it sooner. Ironic too that she cites the European Court of Human Rights as to the reasoning, whereas as only yesterday she was lambasting European Courts and legislation for stealing our sovereignty. I find her insidious and duplicitous. When did we last have a Home Secretary who wasn't a careerist authoritarian? Nevertheless I strongly suspect that today a life has been saved and hopefully from now on we can apply rationale to our extraditions.
- toyg 14y ago
  "Moral decisions"? In modern British politics? Unless you're talking about Robin Cook or David Davies, it's really hard to find any "moral" motivation behind political moves, and this is no exception. This was an easy and popular choice to take. McKinnon was not a threat, and the US "World Police" stance has weakened a lot since the GWB days. Even better, it's an election year in the US in which an incumbent President has to motivate a disillusioned left wing; he really doesn't need the backlash following a potentially unpopular extradition. The point had already been made: subjects of the Empire (which Western Europeans people are, de facto, especially if living in Britain) who dare attacking US military infrastructure, even in jest, will be hunted, and their lives made miserable. Whether they're actually going to be sent to Gitmo is irrelevant in practice: McKinnon's life is forever compromised on many, many levels. So, in practice, Obama(/H.Clinton) doesn't give a rat's ass about McKinnon, and the Coalition has enough problems as it is, there's a good chance to score some cheap political capital, so why pass on it? Add to that the recent announcement about opting out of some EU laws, and you can see that May is positioning herself as friendly towards the right wing, classically "individualist" Tory faction which is currently threatening to "tea party" Cameron, and all without spending any money (which, in government, is always the best sort of action). I don't think there's anything "moral" in that; it's just another day in UK politics.
ed_blackburn 14y ago
Not only was he silly enough to commit the crime, he left sarcastic messages behind, I understand? This begs the question how sensitive was the material? If McKinnon could access it, lets face so could anyone who wanted a look. So..has there ever been any reprisals for the lack of security with the machines he hacked? My understanding was that he used 'off-the-shelf' tools to gain access because the servers weren't patched? In my mind that as negligent as the illegal access.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  Blaming the victim is never the right thing to do. In a well-ordered society, people are expected to obey the law. I can't even imagine how awful a world that expected punished victims for their crimes would be.
  - phaemon 14y ago
    No-one's blaming the victim. They're blaming the security team who were supposed to be protecting the victim. They don't get to be appallingly incompetent at their jobs because someone took advantage of it!
- Monotoko 14y ago
  My understanding is that they used the £500k they said the hack cost to plug the security holes. In an interview I saw a while ago it basically said he walked in through the front door, the "Administrator" account did not have a password and the computers in question were accessible remotely. Edit: A perl script he had scanned for computers with default passwords: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Statements_to_the_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Statements_to_th...
- mryan 14y ago
  The negligence in this case is stunning. His 'hack' was to write a Perl script which scanned a range of IPs, looking for remote access accounts that did not have a password. So, the compromised machines were: - connected to the public internet, with a publicly routable address - not firewalled - running remote access software without a password I strongly believe the strength of feeling shown by the US authorities here is primarily one of embarrassment. It is more comforting to believe you are facing a genius superhacker than it is to believe the people responsible for your network security are literally incompetent. Also, while he was logged in to these machines he had notepad.exe-based conversations with other hackers - he was definitely not the only person who accessed these systems.
gavinlynch 14y ago
Honest question: Why is this a good thing?
- phaemon 14y ago
  Since no-one else has replied, I'll give it a shot... I think there's a general impression in the UK -- no doubt fueled by US TV shows -- that the American prison system is utterly barbaric and you might as well extradite someone to North Korea as the USA. It could well be a misapprehension, but I've not seen any American claim differently, so... what do you think? Also, there was a feeling that there would be pressure brought to bear on the court by the US military, to find him guilty and impose a harsh sentence, in order to distract attention from their incompetence in securing their systems.
  - gavinlynch 14y ago
    Thanks, I appreciate your reply! Regarding the American prison system: Doing some light searching, I've come up with dozens of articles detailing prisoner abuse in the UK (for instance: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/pris-j15.shtml http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/pris-j15.shtml). Frankly, I think a lot of the issues with American prisons are common in such institutions. Prison in America is no treat (just like it isn't in most nations), but I think the comparison to North Korea or any other 3rd world nation is kind of laughable to me (100% personal opinion). I don't get the "distract attention from their incompetence". I know that the public is beginning to become keen to the idea of network security breaches as problems of national defense, and even just aware to the idea of computer security threats in general, but this really wasn't that big of a story here in the US. If they prosecuted this man right now, nobody but hardcore techies would really be paying attention. We're focused on other issues in America right now (see: election 2012) and they're taking up all the oxygen in the room. It's not like the US military and this case of hacking have made the US military the butt of all jokes. In fact, the only articles about penetration of government servers that get real ink are related to: China, Anonymous/Lulzsec/Antisec/*sec and Iran. Furthermore, the US military doesn't need to motivate anyone in this hacking case. The prosecutes for the government don't need to be leaned on, they are dogged enough in their own right. My thought for why this thing is confusing to me: I just feel like I am missing something here. A man who had full knowledge that the actions they were executing were serious crimes, left aggressive messages of a political nature on the servers he trespassed on, is some kind of cult hero? Why? What did he do? Is it because his antagonistic stance against US foreign policy matches with the politics of the IT community? Is it because there is great sympathy in the IT community for people who fall somewhere on the Autism spectrum? His crime attacked the United States. Why -shouldn't- he be extradited? If an American circumvented security measures against servers on Downing Street and deleted information, would the US not extradite him for prosecution in the UK? I don't know... every time the United States wants to extradite a hacker the only impetus can be pure Machiavellian evil? Isn't it possible, or even likely, that someone committed a crime and the prosecutors want that person punished? Because it's the law? And because that is what happens when you commit a crime?

189 points by RobAley 14y ago

off-topic: That House of Commons seems like a really funny business. Why are those people standing up after someone has spoken. Is it something like a +1 mechanism? Is anyone recording it? The whole scene seems like something out of Alice in Wonderland.

jgrahamc 14y ago
They wish to speak and standing up is the signal to the Speaker of the House (http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/the-role-of-the-speaker/role-of-the-speaker/ http://www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/the-ro...) that they have something to say.
- Toenex 14y ago
  They also mainly quite old and a little confused, probably keep think that the national anthem is playing and are standing to honour Her Majesty.
meaty 14y ago
Yes it's absolutely crazy. It's like a look back to the 1700's. You can watch it all live here (you may need a proxy to get it outside the UK): http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_parliament/watchlive http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/tv/bbc_parliament/watchlive
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  How would you run it? The houses actually run fairly well, and part of the reason why is traditions like this. I would happily take this over the American system for example, where there is no back and forward because people have to go to a microphone to talk...
  - RobAley 14y ago
    If you talk to some backbench MPs (usually opposition and/or minority parties) you will find that they (claim to) struggle to get the (partisan) speaker to allot time for them to speak, particularly in high-profile debates and sessions.
    - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
      There are over 600 MPs, that's always going to be an issue. It's worth noting that the chamber of the house isn't the only way to influence proceedings. Recent years have seen a return to prominence of many of the select committees comprised of backbench MPs selected independently of the party whips. The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee was front and centre during the phone hacking scandal and any bill put before parliament will have gone in front of a committee before it gets there.
      - RobAley 14y ago
        > There are over 600 MPs, that's always going to be an issue. I think their complaint isn't that they were struggling due to shear numbers, but due to the partisan speaker and deference to party leaders.
        Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
        The current speaker was the first the be voted in in an exhaustive ballot suggesting that he's likely had more support (or at least more consensus) than previous speakers. Where he's disliked it's largely by those in his own party who don't like one or more of his own political move from the right towards the centre (and not just since being speaker), his Labour supporting wife or in some cases either his more humble beginnings than some of his Conservative colleagues or his own apparent ego. To me much of the criticism seems to stem from personal and political divisions within the Conservative party as Bercow's performance. You're never going to get an entirely impartial speaker given that this is someone who ran as a political candidate for one party or another but I think you need to consider the criticisms in the light of who it's coming from.
sturadnidge 14y ago
I believe it is to signal that they want to speak next.
estel 14y ago
They stand up to "catch the speakers eye" and indicate to the Speaker (the chairperson who mediates the debate) that they would like to ask a question of the home secretary.
RobAley 14y ago
The people standing up want to talk next. The Speaker chooses who does speak next, in a kind of opaque way. Senior gov officials are usually favoured over back-benchers.
inglesp 14y ago
I had a Russian lecturer at my (British) university, who was fond of telling us that Russian lectures are like the British parliament -- people standing up and shouting all the time -- while British lectures are like the Russian parliament -- everybody sitting in cowed silence.
- RobAley 14y ago
  The character of debates in the British parliament changed when it was Televised. Prior to that, it wasn't usual to see MPs having a nap, a bit like during many lectures I went to...
  - dazzawazza 14y ago
    If I remember correctly the legislation allowing televising of the HoC, HoL and Committee chambers state that they are not allowed to show napping members. In general they are more on their toes but you do occasionally catch a long distance shot (from above the main lobby entrance) of someone waking up particularly at the stupid late night debates they have. It's the same law that doesn't allow the footage to be used for parody.
    - Zak 14y ago
      So if I, as an American use the footage for parody, will they try to extradite me to the UK?
      - dazzawazza 14y ago
        There is, somewhere on the internet, a Daily Show episode where even they respect the law and don't use the footage. I imagine they would have to sign a contract to get the footage and would be bound by the draconian idea that men and women sitting two swords length apart across a chamber guarded by men in tights are not to be laughed at.
    - jiggy2011 14y ago
      Wow, I wasn't aware of such a law. Youtube is in a lot of trouble..
dcminter 14y ago
Until relatively recently two collapsible opera hats were maintained for the use of members who wished to raise a point of order. I think even the Reverend Dogson might have considered that a little peculiar.
- arctangent 14y ago
  This was put to an end by "Early Day Motion 1623: Top Hats and Parliamentary Procedure" [1] Quote: "That this House believes the procedure whereby honourable Members are required to wear a top hat or other suitable head covering during certain proceedings on the floor of the House should be ended; calls upon the Select Committee on Procedure to recommend ending the practice; and believes that this whole procedure brings the House into disrepute across the world." [1] http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/commons/early-day-motions/edm-detail1/?session=1992-93&edmnumber=1623&orderby=DateSigned&orderdirection=Asc http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-pape...

meaty 14y ago

The right decision. I'm frankly surprised and pleased. What happens now?

belorn 14y ago
Now a political debate hopefully starts around the subject of extraditions from the UK. Hopefully, things like this, the Assange extradition, and other high publicity cases will put some political pressure on the process, and improves them.
- objclxt 14y ago
  Assange is completely different - it's a totally separate legal process / thing. Not all extraditions are the same. What this will trigger is a discussion around the UK/US extradition treaty, but that's got nothing to do with Assange right now. If the US had actually issued an extradition request then it would be important. The European Arrest Warrant process, which is what Assange is wanted under, is rather different and really not subject to the same kind of political wrangling, mainly because it's part of a raft of EU measures to ensure free trade and borders (if it helps you can think of the EAW as part of a trade: EU citizens get to live and work in any EU country without a permit or visa, but to balance that there needs to be a system to allow swift repatriation of criminal suspects). There is very little scope for political wrangling with regards to European Arrest Warrants - the same can't be said for individual extradition treaties.

andrewcooke 14y ago

demand for more on the news seems to have killed the guardian. bbc now down (or very slow) too.

sim0n 14y ago
Both are working fine for me (UK).
- andrewcooke 14y ago
  ok for me too now (was offline the last 30m). maybe it was something else, but other sites seemed ok. anyway, thanks for the report.
  - mkl 14y ago
    Rather off topic by now, but http://www.isup.me http://www.isup.me is useful in situations like this.

sturadnidge 14y ago

Whilst I agree this is the correct decision, I'm having trouble reconciling how someone who has admitted to accessing a US government network illegally won't be extradited, whereas someone denying an accusation of domestic crime was to be extradited to Sweden? EDIT: Apologies, forgot the part about Assange not being a British citizen.

estel 14y ago
Presuming that you're talking about Assange, there are hugely different considerations when Assange isn't a British citizen.
- sturadnidge 14y ago
  Ah yes, I stand corrected.
  - RobAley 14y ago
    It doesn't actually affect the decisions too much in these particular cases. The cases for and against extradition are invariably fought over issues of human rights, and the law is quite clear that British and EU statutes apply equally to everyone regardless of nationality, at least in considering most of these issues. While the person is in the UK/EU, the national governments cannot use their nationality to overrule any HR arguments against extradition, unless the law specifically prescribes a difference course of action based on nationality, which must not unduly remove any of their human rights.
RobAley 14y ago
Aside from both cases being extremely political, the reasons that both were/are fighting extradition are quite different (mental illness vs. political machinations). Extradition to EU countries is also often viewed differently to the US by the public and politicians, as we both fall under EU law and it is perhaps more like transferring a suspect between states in the US. In neither case is our (UK) government acting in a fair, impartial and democratic way. /sweeping statement
14y ago

jeswin 14y ago

I have been following this for many years. Nobody in England wanted him to be extradited. Most Americans seemed to be against extradition. The rest of the world didn't want it either. I am surprised this went on for so long. EDIT: My bad. UK, not England!

RobAley 14y ago
I'm not. They had to make sure they could get some terrorists and bankers extradited before they could cave on this and change the rules.
- hackerboos 14y ago
  Alleged 'terrorists'. The extradition treaty means we never got to see the evidence.
  - RobAley 14y ago
    Apologies, I was being slightly sarcastic, they were indeed only alleged criminals . The bankers were proven bankers, which isn't usually a crime (though at times perhaps should be), and also hadn't been found guilty in a court of law. Edit: Apologies to bankers everywhere and their supporters, sarcasm turned off for the rest of the day.
    - alexchamberlain 14y ago
      Look some bankers have made some mistakes. I'm sure you were lovely to the one that offered you a mortgage. What about the one that sold that mortgage as part of a pool to another so they could offer your neighbour a mortgage? We need bankers...
      - RobAley 14y ago
        Yeah, I was being sarcastic and generalising for effect. That said, I was pretty harsh to the one that sold me a mortgage, her incompetence at completing the paperwork and delays nearly cost me the chance to buy my house. In general most of my interactions with bank staff have been poor or at least just adequate. I've never had a particularly "good" experience with one. I keep using them, because as you say, we need them. Well, we need bankers. Just perhaps not the ones we've got.

alexchamberlain 14y ago

Hooray. Ignoring his mental illness, he committed a crime under UK law on UK soil and should be prosecuted in the UK for that.

RobAley 14y ago
His "victim" was in the US and he knew that, so I don't think its so simple. The problem I, and I think most people, have is twofold : 1 - There was and is no clear legal framework for intro-jurisdictional crimes like this. The law should be settled and clear before it is applied, otherwise people cannot asses whether their actions will break a law. 2 - The US criminal charges and punishments with which he is threatened appear to be grossly disproportionate to his actual actions. This wouldn't be an issue if he were guaranteed a fair trial, but the connection between the "victim" and the "prosecutor" (ie. both US gov) and statements made by the prosecution and US Government suggest that he may not get a fair trial.
- alexchamberlain 14y ago
  The location of his victim is irrelevant IMHO. He was using a computer in the UK. Under the Computer Misuse Act, one must not use a computer to access another computer without prior authorisation of the owner, which he did not have. Therefore, he has committed a crime under said act in the UK. I feel quite strongly about this, because if I were to ever commit such a crime for whatever reason, I would want to be prosecuted in the UK. Therefore, I should expect the UK to prosecute people in a similar situation. There was a number of UK online gambling website owners arrested in the US for "selling" their services to US citizens. They were providing a service to UK citizens on UK (or at least non-US) servers and, at the time, didn't prevent people from signing up based on their IP (or other geographical information). The US felt it was their right to step in... * I am not making an assertions on anyone's guilt, since they've never actually been proved in court.
  - RobAley 14y ago
    > I would want to be prosecuted in the UK. The proper place to be prosecuted is the one in which the wider interests of justice and society are served. To that end the location of the victim and/or the perpetrator are both irrelevant. It is a very nuanced question and perhaps varies a lot depending on the (alleged) crime. Garry's case is different to the gambling one you cite, he specifically chose and targeted a "victim" he knew to be in the US, the gambling websites didn't. A parallel case may be where scammers in one country where the law doesn't prohibit it specifically target victims in another, remotely. In that case there would be no re-dress for the victims and justice and society would not benefit from your jurisdictional preference. Until all countries have equal and fair laws, or there are definite and settled frameworks for jurisdiction, the cases will have to be judged on a case by case basis. Which is no good and leads to travesties like Garry's case. If you read my other comments, I am in favour of todays decision. But it's not a cut and dried case either way.

andrewnez 14y ago

Now can we have the same for Richard O'Dwyer please.

harel 14y ago
Amen to that.

djhworld 14y ago

I wonder if this will sour relations between the UK and the USA.

Quarrelsome 14y ago
The BBC reported that in a recent meeting between Obama and Cameron this was discussed. This suggests that US interest in extraditing him had cooled and that they wouldn't be too upset with this outcome.

belorn 14y ago

Interesting to hear that even government voices is critical to the view to have a mutually respect for every other countries laws.

bruceboughton 14y ago
What do you mean?

unix-dude 14y ago

Im glad it turned out this way. He committed a crime, yes, but I can't help but think the US would have handed him a far too harsh sentence.

marcuspovey 14y ago

Given that he supposedly cracked secure computers, which I would hope was no simple matter, the US shouldn't be extraditing him to face prison. They should give him a job.

b6 14y ago
IIRC, his main technique was to log in to Windows NT boxes with null Administrator passwords.
andyn 14y ago
He claims a Perl script that found computers with default or blank passwords. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Statements_to_the_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Statements_to_th...
danielweber 14y ago
No they shouldn't. Apart from the normal reasons you don't hire thieves to guard your stuff[1], he is too mentally unstable to be trusted with anything. Remember, it was his mental instability that probably saved him from extradition. [1] Yeah, it makes for great Hollywood stuff, but that's Hollywood.

harel 14y ago

Theresa May had partially and only partially redeemed herself in my eyes. I was so disappointed by the Richard O'Dwyer case that I didn't think her capable of any moral decision. One more move Mrs May, and I, and many more will believe you are a thinking human being.

nicholassmith 14y ago
She's a thinking political creature. There'd have been enough outrage (especially from the DM) that she'd have never weathered the storm.
mibbitier 14y ago
Her hands were probably tied at the time, due to Abu Hamza etc which has now been dealt with. I fully expect her to clarify the position for Richard O'Dwyer soon and can't see him ever being extradited.
- harel 14y ago
  I hope this is the case. It does make sense considering we're Post-Hamza now.
ed_blackburn 14y ago
I think this is all about the publicity. Otherwise she would have done it sooner. Ironic too that she cites the European Court of Human Rights as to the reasoning, whereas as only yesterday she was lambasting European Courts and legislation for stealing our sovereignty. I find her insidious and duplicitous. When did we last have a Home Secretary who wasn't a careerist authoritarian? Nevertheless I strongly suspect that today a life has been saved and hopefully from now on we can apply rationale to our extraditions.
toyg 14y ago
"Moral decisions"? In modern British politics? Unless you're talking about Robin Cook or David Davies, it's really hard to find any "moral" motivation behind political moves, and this is no exception. This was an easy and popular choice to take. McKinnon was not a threat, and the US "World Police" stance has weakened a lot since the GWB days. Even better, it's an election year in the US in which an incumbent President has to motivate a disillusioned left wing; he really doesn't need the backlash following a potentially unpopular extradition. The point had already been made: subjects of the Empire (which Western Europeans people are, de facto, especially if living in Britain) who dare attacking US military infrastructure, even in jest, will be hunted, and their lives made miserable. Whether they're actually going to be sent to Gitmo is irrelevant in practice: McKinnon's life is forever compromised on many, many levels. So, in practice, Obama(/H.Clinton) doesn't give a rat's ass about McKinnon, and the Coalition has enough problems as it is, there's a good chance to score some cheap political capital, so why pass on it? Add to that the recent announcement about opting out of some EU laws, and you can see that May is positioning herself as friendly towards the right wing, classically "individualist" Tory faction which is currently threatening to "tea party" Cameron, and all without spending any money (which, in government, is always the best sort of action). I don't think there's anything "moral" in that; it's just another day in UK politics.

ed_blackburn 14y ago

Not only was he silly enough to commit the crime, he left sarcastic messages behind, I understand? This begs the question how sensitive was the material? If McKinnon could access it, lets face so could anyone who wanted a look. So..has there ever been any reprisals for the lack of security with the machines he hacked? My understanding was that he used 'off-the-shelf' tools to gain access because the servers weren't patched? In my mind that as negligent as the illegal access.

SoftwareMaven 14y ago
Blaming the victim is never the right thing to do. In a well-ordered society, people are expected to obey the law. I can't even imagine how awful a world that expected punished victims for their crimes would be.
- phaemon 14y ago
  No-one's blaming the victim. They're blaming the security team who were supposed to be protecting the victim. They don't get to be appallingly incompetent at their jobs because someone took advantage of it!
Monotoko 14y ago
My understanding is that they used the £500k they said the hack cost to plug the security holes. In an interview I saw a while ago it basically said he walked in through the front door, the "Administrator" account did not have a password and the computers in question were accessible remotely. Edit: A perl script he had scanned for computers with default passwords: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Statements_to_the_media https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Statements_to_th...
mryan 14y ago
The negligence in this case is stunning. His 'hack' was to write a Perl script which scanned a range of IPs, looking for remote access accounts that did not have a password. So, the compromised machines were: - connected to the public internet, with a publicly routable address - not firewalled - running remote access software without a password I strongly believe the strength of feeling shown by the US authorities here is primarily one of embarrassment. It is more comforting to believe you are facing a genius superhacker than it is to believe the people responsible for your network security are literally incompetent. Also, while he was logged in to these machines he had notepad.exe-based conversations with other hackers - he was definitely not the only person who accessed these systems.

gavinlynch 14y ago

Honest question: Why is this a good thing?

phaemon 14y ago
Since no-one else has replied, I'll give it a shot... I think there's a general impression in the UK -- no doubt fueled by US TV shows -- that the American prison system is utterly barbaric and you might as well extradite someone to North Korea as the USA. It could well be a misapprehension, but I've not seen any American claim differently, so... what do you think? Also, there was a feeling that there would be pressure brought to bear on the court by the US military, to find him guilty and impose a harsh sentence, in order to distract attention from their incompetence in securing their systems.
- gavinlynch 14y ago
  Thanks, I appreciate your reply! Regarding the American prison system: Doing some light searching, I've come up with dozens of articles detailing prisoner abuse in the UK (for instance: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/pris-j15.shtml http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/pris-j15.shtml). Frankly, I think a lot of the issues with American prisons are common in such institutions. Prison in America is no treat (just like it isn't in most nations), but I think the comparison to North Korea or any other 3rd world nation is kind of laughable to me (100% personal opinion). I don't get the "distract attention from their incompetence". I know that the public is beginning to become keen to the idea of network security breaches as problems of national defense, and even just aware to the idea of computer security threats in general, but this really wasn't that big of a story here in the US. If they prosecuted this man right now, nobody but hardcore techies would really be paying attention. We're focused on other issues in America right now (see: election 2012) and they're taking up all the oxygen in the room. It's not like the US military and this case of hacking have made the US military the butt of all jokes. In fact, the only articles about penetration of government servers that get real ink are related to: China, Anonymous/Lulzsec/Antisec/*sec and Iran. Furthermore, the US military doesn't need to motivate anyone in this hacking case. The prosecutes for the government don't need to be leaned on, they are dogged enough in their own right. My thought for why this thing is confusing to me: I just feel like I am missing something here. A man who had full knowledge that the actions they were executing were serious crimes, left aggressive messages of a political nature on the servers he trespassed on, is some kind of cult hero? Why? What did he do? Is it because his antagonistic stance against US foreign policy matches with the politics of the IT community? Is it because there is great sympathy in the IT community for people who fall somewhere on the Autism spectrum? His crime attacked the United States. Why -shouldn't- he be extradited? If an American circumvented security measures against servers on Downing Street and deleted information, would the US not extradite him for prosecution in the UK? I don't know... every time the United States wants to extradite a hacker the only impetus can be pure Machiavellian evil? Isn't it possible, or even likely, that someone committed a crime and the prosecutors want that person punished? Because it's the law? And because that is what happens when you commit a crime?