

Gary McKinnon extradition ruling due today - jwdunne
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138

======
junto
The UK has The Computer Misuse Act (1990), which quite adequately covers the
allegations made against Mr McKinnon. Whether or not he has Asperger Syndrome,
or is potentially suicidal is irrelevant with regards to his extradition in my
opinion. He should not be extradited to the US for a crime __that took place
on British soil __.

The evidence should be presented to the UK Crown Prosecution Service and they
should decide whether or not it is in the public interest to try Mr McKinnon
in a court of law in front of a jury of __his __peers.

If damages are owed, then Mr McKinnon should be required to make amends and
serve any prison time should he be found guilty.

The US should be simply a party claiming criminal damages, in the same way
that a British yob might smash the car window of a diplomatic vehicle owned by
the United States also on British territory.

If Mr McKinnon is extradited, then the British people need to seriously
question the validity of their sovereignty.

~~~
kokey
I believe North Korea agrees with you, if one of their citizens set off UK
nuclear missiles to attack UK targets, they would prefer to be tried in a
North Korean court. You should respect their sovereignty ;-)

Just to be clear, I don't believe the punishment the US has in mind for him is
fair and in proportion for his crimes. That said, if you use a hacking tool on
purpose to target the US military from your home computer, it's also not going
to get much sympathy from me.

~~~
junto
Criminal damage is slightly different to killing millions of people,
especially if that act is undertaken by a state.

------
DigitalSea
The way this guy has been treated for the past six years is disgusting. Sure
he committed a crime, but he is obviously a very capable guy with talents that
the UK & US governments could benefit from. What Gary did was victimless, it's
not like he stole files and tried selling them nor passing them to a third
party who could have done damage.

This is the backwards way the world works. If I were the US or UK Government I
would be offering this guy a job in a cyber crimes division and give him the
task of security testing Government infrastructure, there aren't many people
who can say they've successful breached a secure US network and been able to
access classified documents.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
It's not entirely victimless.

The US tax payer had to stump up cash for a whole bunch of investigation into
what had happened, what had been compromised and so on.

Now, you can make a good argument that it actually made them pull their
collective finger out and sort some stuff out that really needed sorting out,
and that's probably true, but it's also probably true that having to do it in
the way that they did (in response to an attack) cost more and was more
disruptive than it would otherwise have been, and came with a larger bill as a
result.

It's easy to think of attacks on the government as victimless but ultimately
it all comes back to the citizens of that country (in the same way insurance
fraud isn't victimless, the victims are those whose pensions are invested in
the firms and those who have to pay the increased premiums that result).

My reading of it is that from a legal point of view it's a fair cop (both in
terms of the crime and the extradition). The issue is that the American's seem
to have made it clear that they don't give a toss about his Aspergers and the
complications that it presents and that's where the calls for leniency and not
extraditing him become justified.

~~~
meaty
Personally, I think the citizens should pay for the cock ups of their elected
representatives and their public servants.

Pointing fingers at this guy is all fine and that, but no-one dares mention
the bus size hole they left in their security infrastructure as that would be
_bad for business_...

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Of course, who else is going to pick up the bill?

I'm really just disputing the term victimless - it implies that no-one suffers
which rather skews how it's seen and isn't the case.

We can debate your suggestion that they _should_ be victims but that doesn't
change the fact that they _are_ victims.

------
RobAley
Breaking news - Home Secretary has blocked his extradition see
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4659305>

Its the first thing she has done right in the job. Probably the last as well.
She only did it because of public pressure, which while thats the way
democratic government should work, its a pity she couldn't personally see the
case for it (cf her previous comments).

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
She's used the Human Rights act, which she broadly despises, to get herself
off the hook.

While it is public pressure I suspect that the pressure from the Daily Mail (a
paper which with two exceptions - of which this is one - has been on the wrong
side of pretty much every significant issue up to and including it's support
for Hitler) might have been a major factor.

As a Tory you don't want to mess with the Mail, it's the paper of much of your
core vote and you don't want it rounding on you and it's been very anti-
extradition.

~~~
RobAley
I had to move the Daily Mail off a seat on the bus the other week and it
literally made my skin crawl. A childish and visceral reaction perhaps, but
not an unusual one for anyone with an ounce of empathy for others I think.

Edit: Yes, that deserved the down-votes. I think there is perhaps a more
constructive comment that better puts the emotional and physical responses a
particular brand associated with a particular line of thinking can elicit, but
I can't think of that comment right now.

------
jwdunne
Just an update everyone: Gary McKinnon's extradition has been blocked by the
Home Secretary. I have been watching live here:

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19962844>

"Home Secretary Theresa May says there is no doubt Mr McKinnon is seriously
ill. She says she has carefully examined the medical evidence and taken legal
advice and has concluded that his extradition would give such a high risk that
he would end his life that it restricts his human rights."

------
varjag
The whole concept of getting six decades for victimless crime is deeply
disturbing.

------
k-mcgrady
This has dragged on way too long. Glad there's finally going to be a decision
(hopefully it's the right one). Even if you take away the Asperger's Syndrome
a UK citizen should not be able to be extradited and face prison in the US for
a computer crime of this nature (arguably any computer crime).

We will probably see more of this throughout the world. With the ability to
commit crime on the internet deciding 'where' that crime took place and who's
jurisdiction it falls under is going to be tricky.

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Why any computer crime? Is it not crime in some way?

There are valid arguments about where the crime takes place and the
jurisdiction in question (the location of the attacker or the victim), but can
you say you should never extradite someone for computer crimes?

You also need to ask yourself how you think an attack by someone in Iran on
the US should be handled. Are you happy with that being dealt with by Iran?

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "...can you say you should never extradite someone for computer crimes?"

That's a big question and as someone with now law experience I can't really
answer it. I guess it would all come down to the jurisdiction, that seems to
be an important point which needs to be worked out and made clear. Once there
are a clear set of rules for determining that I think these cases will be much
easier.

>> "You also need to ask yourself how you think an attack by someone in Iran
on the US should be handled. Are you happy with that being dealt with by
Iran?"

Creating laws on a country by country basis won't work. If it is agreed that
the computer crime takes place in the country the computer and person was in
it should be up to that country to deal with it not the country attacked.

And, although Iran may not have a good record, if speculation is correct
Stuxnet was a US/Israeli invention [1]. What gives the US the right to
create/spread a computer virus and then extradite someone for breaking into
their computers? It's the double standards that piss me off.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#United_States>

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
OK, you flip it around and say if you're Iran, are you happy with the US
investigating and prosecuting the Stuxnet attack?

I'm not saying I have answers, just that the blanket statement no extradition
for computer crimes seems wrong (as most blanket statements are).

~~~
k-mcgrady
That's not really what I meant. I phrased it incorrectly, forming my opinion
as I wrote. I was trying to say that there should be specific rules that are
followed in cases of computer crimes. Rules that should apply to all persons
and that all countries should sign on to follow. I think this needs to be done
because of the issues of jurisdiction. Treating everyone on a case by case
basis is unfair and time consuming as this case showed. So you are right, a
blanket statement of no extradition for computer crimes is wrong.

------
nicholassmith
The US should have been sensible and just handed the evidence over to the UK
courts and said "Look, it's overwhelming, criminal computer use etc etc get
the courts moving".

He should be tried in front of a jury of his peers, which amazingly aren't
Americans and for a proportional crime which would be unauthorised access to a
machine, not criminal computer damage which is ridiculous on the face of it.
It's not like he was trashing disks.

Oh, for the people who say he must be a genius or you'd offer him a job, he's
admitted repeatedly he's got basic skills and mostly got into where he did
through the repeated incompetence of some of the US' biggest security
establishments. And he genuinely was after UFO stuff, there's an interview
with him on one of the UFO conspiracy websites where he talks about trying to
find it.

------
andyjohnson0
Gary McKinnon extradition blocked by Theresa May

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138>

------
benhalllondon
This story just has so much PR spin around it:

"could face 60 years in jail if convicted in the US" (nah) "Asperger's
Syndrome" (this came out a long time after the initial charges) "evidence of
UFOs" (he's kooky, not malice!) Quotes from his mum, she wrote to The Guardian
(adds to the slightly confused school child vibe)

------
nemof
An interesting article by the solicitor David Allen Green on the legal
perspectives of the case:

<http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2012/10/gary-mckinnon>

I'm not endorsing by posting it, but worth a read.

------
estel
It's just been announced that the extradition is to be blocked. Superb!

