

Gary McKinnon saved from extradition to the US - RobAley
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19962844

======
jeswin
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
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
Alleged 'terrorists'. The extradition treaty means we never got to see the
evidence.

~~~
RobAley
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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.

------
ed_blackburn
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
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
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!

------
mapleoin
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.

~~~
inglesp
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
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
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
So if I, as an American use the footage for parody, will they try to extradite
me to the UK?

~~~
dazzawazza
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.

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

~~~
harel
Amen to that.

------
harel
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.

~~~
mibbitier
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
I hope this is the case. It does make sense considering we're Post-Hamza now.

------
unix-dude
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.

------
sturadnidge
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
Presuming that you're talking about Assange, there are hugely different
considerations when Assange isn't a British citizen.

~~~
sturadnidge
Ah yes, I stand corrected.

~~~
RobAley
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.

------
meaty
The right decision. I'm frankly surprised and pleased.

What happens now?

~~~
belorn
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
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.

------
marcuspovey
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.

~~~
andyn
He claims a Perl script that found computers with default or blank passwords.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Statements_to_th...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon#Statements_to_the_media)

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

~~~
bruceboughton
What do you mean?

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

~~~
Quarrelsome
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.

------
gavinlynch
Honest question: Why is this a good thing?

~~~
phaemon
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
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>). 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?

~~~
phaemon
Of course UK prisons aren't holiday camps. But there's no chance of McKinnon
ending up in one of those prisons. I meant that the _impression_ given of US
prisons is like:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px2kTQKZaSU&noredirect=1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px2kTQKZaSU&noredirect=1)

...and McKinnon did get the impression he might end up somewhere like that. If
you stand a good chance of being beaten, raped, tortured and eventually
killed, then how exactly is it less bad than being sent to a third world
country? Better food? ;)

As for "cult hero", I've no idea where you got that from. People generally
think he's a slightly pathetic character who did something a bit stupid by
poking about in unsecured computer systems. A crime that possibly merits a
£2000 fine and some community service (and firing the people responsible for
securing those systems).

Instead, it's "extradite a hacker" to meet with Justice (American Style!). Can
you not see why people would object to that?

[edit for spelling, and forgot a bit]

~~~
gavinlynch
>>> "A crime that possibly merits a £2000 fine and some community service (and
firing the people responsible for securing those systems)."

I guess this is probably the rub. When you trespass into your neighbors
backyard to jump in their pool at night and you get caught, that could be a
fine and community service. When you trespass on military property, let's say
you hop a fence or sneak your way into a government building... That's kind of
a big deal.

When you work your way into government servers and delete data... That's not
just community service. That's kind of a big deal.

~~~
phaemon
>When you trespass on military property, let's say you hop a fence or sneak
your way into a government building... That's kind of a big deal.

No, it's really not. If someone wandered onto an unsecured Government facility
in the UK, they'd probably be picked up and questioned...and then released
with a stern warning not to do it again.

> When you work your way into government servers and delete data

Did he delete data? I though he just poked around and left some messages?
Anyway, he hardly _worked_ his way into them; they were wide open. I just
don't see it as a big deal.

Here's what I don't get about you though...you're a US taxpayer, right? That
means you paid some people to secure those machines. And they completely
failed in their job, right?

If you hire someone who then completely fails to do what you hired them to do,
why don't you want them fired?

[edit: I missed this question before...]

> 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?

Nope, the extradition treaty is one-way. That's another thing that sticks in
people's craw...

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

~~~
sim0n
Both are working fine for me (UK).

~~~
andrewcooke
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
Rather off topic by now, but <http://www.isup.me> is useful in situations like
this.

