Topic: Briton claims he broke into Pentagon, NASA computers to find UFO data

[toasty0]

LONDON - Britain's top court refused Wednesday to stop the extradition to the U.S. of a British hacker accused of breaking into Pentagon and NASA computers — something he claims to have done while hunting for information on UFOs.

Gary McKinnon, 42, faces charges in the United States for what officials say were a series of cyber attacks that stole passwords, attacked military networks and wrought hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of computer damage.

The decision by Britain's House of Lords was his last legal option in this country, but his lawyer said she would appeal his case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France.

Story continues below ↓
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
advertisement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The consequences he faces if extradited are both disproportionate and intolerable and we will be making an immediate application to the European court to prevent his removal," Karen Todner said after McKinnon's appeal was rejected. "We believe that the British government declined to prosecute him to enable the U.S. government to make an example of him."

McKinnon's supporters say he faces unjust treatment and the prospect of a harsh sentence at the hands of a U.S. court and want him freed — or at least tried in Britain.

Prosecutors allege that McKinnon hacked into more than 90 computer systems belonging to the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Department of Defense and NASA between February 2001 and March 2002, causing $900,000 worth of damage.

McKinnon has acknowledged accessing the computers, but he disputes the reported damage and said he did it because he wanted to find evidence that America was concealing the existence of aliens.

McKinnon was caught in 2002 after some of the software used in the attacks was traced back to his girlfriend's e-mail account.

[Dash Jones]

People would be outraged by another nation wanting to try a US citizen in their court...so in that light...

I think the US has no right to try him in their court.

Perhaps they should beef up their security instead.

Oh...and now to the more important thing.  Did he find anything?

[toasty0]

People would be outraged by another nation wanting to try a US citizen in their court...so in that light...

I think the US has no right to try him in their court.

Perhaps they should beef up their security instead.

Oh...and now to the more important thing.  Did he find anything?

I think we should ask agent Scully.

[knightstorm]

People would be outraged by another nation wanting to try a US citizen in their court...so in that light...

I think the US has no right to try him in their court.

Perhaps they should beef up their security instead.

Oh...and now to the more important thing.  Did he find anything?

And other nations would be outraged if we tried to prevent the extradition of one of our citizens who committed a serious crime in another country.  The US does have a right to try someone for crimes which caused damage in its territory.  Its called extradition.  The US as well as most countries will extradite a citizen who has committed a crime in another country.  For example, we arrested Dog Chapman and began the legal process of extraditing him at the request of the Mexican government before they agreed to drop the charges.  The US also has a treaty with Britain which mutually expands this right.  Among Western nations, the big exception is France which protects its rapist pedophiles.  Another slight exception is that if someone is wanted for a capital offense, the Europeans won't extradite them unless they have a guarantee that they will not face the death penalty.

[knightstorm]

Besides, you don't need to hack the pentagon to find proof of UFOs.  All you need to do is contact the prophet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrQsQQ83Wrg

[Dash Jones]

He wasn't in the US at the time of the crime.

[Dash Jones]

The prophet eh?

I wonder if he has any relation to the Prophets!?

You know, from DS9?

[knightstorm]

He wasn't in the US at the time of the crime.

Under that logic, if someone launched a missile at a US embassy, we wouldn't be able to try them in American courts.  Whether he was on US soil or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that he attacked property of the United States government.

[Nemesis]

Under that logic, if someone launched a missile at a US embassy, we wouldn't be able to try them in American courts.  Whether he was on US soil or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that he attacked property of the United States government.

This goes into a very grey area.  If you send an E-Mail that contains things illegal in another country to that country did you commit a crime (for example some Nazi related stuff in Germany would be illegal, E-Bay has had trouble over that).  Would you expect to be extradited for it?  Should you be.

[Nemesis]

This case has been going on for years and I read about it some time ago. One of the problems with it is that the charges are based on the "damage" done.  The damage is inflated by including the cost to seal the security flaws that he used, flaws that were not of his creating and were there before he used them.  It also includes the cost of them doing a security survey of their site to fix things, a survey that they badly needed to do to secure it regardless of his actions.  These costs being counted as damages inflates his potential punishment.

I haven't heard that the system administrators have been punished in any way for not maintaining security on systems that wer supposed to be secure.    They should definitely be in a lot of trouble IF they are still employed there instead of being fired for incompetence.

[knightstorm]

Under that logic, if someone launched a missile at a US embassy, we wouldn't be able to try them in American courts.  Whether he was on US soil or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that he attacked property of the United States government.

This goes into a very grey area.  If you send an E-Mail that contains things illegal in another country to that country did you commit a crime (for example some Nazi related stuff in Germany would be illegal, E-Bay has had trouble over that).  Would you expect to be extradited for it?  Should you be.

It depends on whether there's an extradition treaty. If there isn't then you can only be extradited for something that's illegal in your home country.  Either way, this is a moot point because he did cause real damage, and he hacked the defense department computers for an allied nation.  As the article pointed out however, the EU and the US don't see eye to eye on cruel and unusual punishment.  For example they foolishly believe that the extended periods of waiting on death row that criminals face in the American system is cruel and unusual despite the fact that the only reason criminals stay on death row so long is because out of the interest of fairness we give them every available opportunity to overturn their sentence before we execute them.

[Dash Jones]

Some nations also believe execution is ALSO a cruel and unusual punishment.

However, trying to keep it light, since this isn't H&S, with all that, I'm still wondering if he found anything on UFO's and extraterrestrial life.

[knightstorm]

Some nations also believe execution is ALSO a cruel and unusual punishment.

However, trying to keep it light, since this isn't H&S, with all that, I'm still wondering if he found anything on UFO's and extraterrestrial life.

That might be the case, but the European Court on human rights actually heard a case from an American who killed his girlfriend and then fled to Europe, and tried to fight extradition on the grounds that it was cruel and unusual punishment.  Not discussing whether the death penalty itself was cruel and unusual, the court ruled that the waiting periods in the United States met the criteria.  However, as I have stated a lot of times, people who compare civil rights in the US to other countries tend to take things out of context which is what annoys me.  That waiting period is one example.  I would name others, but you are right we should keep this to H&S.

As for your second point, I already told you, Prophet Yahweh seer of Yahweh and summoner of UFOs has already shown that they do exist.  Just watch the youtube link.

[Nemesis]

Either way, this is a moot point because he did cause real damage,

What real damage?  As I recall the "damage" listed when I read about it (back when it happened) was all in the form of expenses to actually secure the system the way that they were required to do.  I don't see that as damage.   So what did he do that constituted damage?

The hacking in I agree is a crime and should not have been done regardless of how secure the system was and is or should be punishable.  But compare his potential sentence for what is essentially tresspassing to those who commit real damaging crimes and it is out of line.

Consider Conrad Black facing 6.5 years in prison for his convictions on fraud ($6.1 million), obstruction of justice and other charges.  In minimum security.  While this hacker is being threatened with 70 years in maximum security for damages (that I consider inflated) that are  not even of the same order of magnitude.  To me obstruction of justice and the betrayal of trust by an executive like Black to enrich themselves at the expense of those they have a legal, ethical and moral obligation to serve is a far worse crime than computer tresspassing.  Yet somehow this computer tresspasser is threatened with a far worse punishment.

[knightstorm]

HE HACKED DEFENSE DEPARTMENT COMPUTERS.  That sort of thing can endanger lives.

[Nemesis]

HE HACKED DEFENSE DEPARTMENT COMPUTERS.  That sort of thing can endanger lives.

Endangered, perhaps.  But no actual harm  to people or equipment has been shown as far as I know.   Is it worth a jail sentence of 60 - 70 years in maximum security?  Is that an appropriate magnitude to the sentence?   Is counting the expense of putting in place the type of security that should have been there in the first place reasonable to count as damage done by him?

The system operators did not operate secure systems, which in fact was their job.  Some of the systems he is accused of hacking into had BLANK administrator passwords, no firewall and no other protections.  The operators were endangering lives by not doing their job how many decades would you send them to jail for endangering peoples lives?  Negligence or incompetence either way they deserve some form of punishment.

I'm not arguing that he does not deserve punishment merely that the magnitude and type of sentence he is threatened with is disproportionate to the actual crime.

[toasty0]

Either way, this is a moot point because he did cause real damage,

What real damage?  As I recall the "damage" listed when I read about it (back when it happened) was all in the form of expenses to actually secure the system the way that they were required to do.  I don't see that as damage.   So what did he do that constituted damage?

The hacking in I agree is a crime and should not have been done regardless of how secure the system was and is or should be punishable.  But compare his potential sentence for what is essentially tresspassing to those who commit real damaging crimes and it is out of line.

Consider Conrad Black facing 6.5 years in prison for his convictions on fraud ($6.1 million), obstruction of justice and other charges.  In minimum security.  While this hacker is being threatened with 70 years in maximum security for damages (that I consider inflated) that are  not even of the same order of magnitude.  To me obstruction of justice and the betrayal of trust by an executive like Black to enrich themselves at the expense of those they have a legal, ethical and moral obligation to serve is a far worse crime than computer tresspassing.  Yet somehow this computer tresspasser is threatened with a far worse punishment.

You're playing lawyer here Nem. The truth of it is that what he did was reckless and possibly placed millions of people in harms way. For that he should cools his heels for a very long time.

[Dracho]

The litmus test, IMHO is if we would extradite an American citizen to them if he did the same thing to their systems.  If the answer is yes, hand him over.

[knightstorm]

The litmus test, IMHO is if we would extradite an American citizen to them if he did the same thing to their systems.  If the answer is yes, hand him over.

Don't know for sure until it happens, but the answer is probably yes.  Although it really depends on the country he's hacking.  If its someone we don't like, I imagine we'ld probably try to protect them, but if its a close ally like the UK, he's up the river without a paddle.

[Nemesis]

You're playing lawyer here Nem. The truth of it is that what he did was reckless and possibly placed millions of people in harms way. For that he should cools his heels for a very long time.

I haven't seen anything that indicates the had access to let alone used or damaged anything that could endanger millions of lives.   What does the military put on internet connected systems that could do that and why haven't any terrorist hackers used them yet? 

The system operators by not even using basic security on their systems (no firewalls and blank admin passwords remember) left the systems under their care open to malevolent hackers, were they not reckless and endangering those very same people while betraying the trust that they accepted with the job?  Where is their punishments?

Other people recklessly endanger the lives of others but we don't give them long jail terms, especially on the 1st offense.  Drunk driving and flying for example.  How long was the jail sentence of the Exxon Valdez captain?  His recklessness (DID not COULD have) cost Exxon billions and destroyed businesses and lively hoods for people ($50,000 fine and 1000 hours community service over 5 years).  The damage this captain did was 3 orders of magnitude higher (at least maybe more) yet his sentence includes no jail time. 

I still assert that based on what we know was done that the threatened sentence is far disproportianate, both in time and the maximum security  jail aspect for the damage he caused compared to other criminals. Child molesters, rapists and killers get lower sentences.

[knightstorm]

The system operators by not even using basic security on their systems (no firewalls and blank admin passwords remember) left the systems under their care open to malevolent hackers, were they not reckless and endangering those very same people while betraying the trust that they accepted with the job?  Where is their punishments?

Other people recklessly endanger the lives of others but we don't give them long jail terms, especially on the 1st offense.  Drunk driving and flying for example.  How long was the jail sentence of the Exxon Valdez captain?  His recklessness (DID not COULD have) cost Exxon billions and destroyed businesses and lively hoods for people ($50,000 fine and 1000 hours community service over 5 years).  The damage this captain did was 3 orders of magnitude higher (at least maybe more) yet his sentence includes no jail time. 

I still assert that based on what we know was done that the threatened sentence is far disproportianate, both in time and the maximum security  jail aspect for the damage he caused compared to other criminals. Child molesters, rapists and killers get lower sentences.

I agree the system operators were wrong, they should have been dismissed and possibly charged also.  That doesn't mean that this guy did not commit a serious offense.

[toasty0]

The system operators by not even using basic security on their systems (no firewalls and blank admin passwords remember) left the systems under their care open to malevolent hackers, were they not reckless and endangering those very same people while betraying the trust that they accepted with the job?  Where is their punishments?

Other people recklessly endanger the lives of others but we don't give them long jail terms, especially on the 1st offense.  Drunk driving and flying for example.  How long was the jail sentence of the Exxon Valdez captain?  His recklessness (DID not COULD have) cost Exxon billions and destroyed businesses and lively hoods for people ($50,000 fine and 1000 hours community service over 5 years).  The damage this captain did was 3 orders of magnitude higher (at least maybe more) yet his sentence includes no jail time. 

I still assert that based on what we know was done that the threatened sentence is far disproportianate, both in time and the maximum security  jail aspect for the damage he caused compared to other criminals. Child molesters, rapists and killers get lower sentences.

I agree the system operators were wrong, they should have been dismissed and possibly charged also.  That doesn't mean that this guy did not commit a serious offense.

I'm not sure I agree with this. If we were to charge the SysAdmins do to this guy's activity, then we would be required to charge law enforcement personal for the reckless acts of criminals, or traffic engineers for negligent drivers speeding through a red lights.

[Dracho]

It's a tired old hacker's argument that if the owner was serious about security he wouldn't have been able to compromise the system.  It's like a robber blaming the victim he shot for not wearing a bulletproof vest.  When all the BS is washed away, the fact still remains that if the perp hadn't broken the law, there would be no crime.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

LONDON - Britain's top court refused Wednesday to stop the extradition to the U.S. of a British hacker accused of breaking into Pentagon and NASA computers — something he claims to have done while hunting for information on UFOs.

For a sec there I thought this may have been Roman Polanski.


My bad.

[knightstorm]

The system operators by not even using basic security on their systems (no firewalls and blank admin passwords remember) left the systems under their care open to malevolent hackers, were they not reckless and endangering those very same people while betraying the trust that they accepted with the job?  Where is their punishments?

Other people recklessly endanger the lives of others but we don't give them long jail terms, especially on the 1st offense.  Drunk driving and flying for example.  How long was the jail sentence of the Exxon Valdez captain?  His recklessness (DID not COULD have) cost Exxon billions and destroyed businesses and lively hoods for people ($50,000 fine and 1000 hours community service over 5 years).  The damage this captain did was 3 orders of magnitude higher (at least maybe more) yet his sentence includes no jail time. 

I still assert that based on what we know was done that the threatened sentence is far disproportianate, both in time and the maximum security  jail aspect for the damage he caused compared to other criminals. Child molesters, rapists and killers get lower sentences.

I agree the system operators were wrong, they should have been dismissed and possibly charged also.  That doesn't mean that this guy did not commit a serious offense.

I'm not sure I agree with this. If we were to charge the SysAdmins do to this guy's activity, then we would be required to charge law enforcement personal for the reckless acts of criminals, or traffic engineers for negligent drivers speeding through a red lights.

Well if what Nemesis says was true they were severely negligent, to the point of being criminal.  However, this does not excuse his activities, and he should face the full sentence.

[knightstorm]

LONDON - Britain's top court refused Wednesday to stop the extradition to the U.S. of a British hacker accused of breaking into Pentagon and NASA computers — something he claims to have done while hunting for information on UFOs.

For a sec there I thought this may have been Roman Polanski.


My bad.

No, its the French who refuse to extradite Polanski.  They refuse to extradite their own citizens.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

Which is why I made the pun.

[knightstorm]

Which is why I made the pun.

Yeah, but the title of the post makes it clear that its Britain, which makes that a really  bad pun.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

IYHO

Brits are our buds.  France is still learning.

We may get him yet.

[knightstorm]

By this point, I don't think France will relent before the child rapist dies.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

Justice does not cease with the guilty taking his final breath.

[knightstorm]

Yeah, but then it becomes a matter of eternal justice and is outside of the hands of earthly governments.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

And that justice is perfect.

[Bonk]

In related news...

[Fedman NCC-3758]

Don't mess with Mars.

 

[Bonk]

Or the Hydran base on Titan! 

[Nemesis]

It's a tired old hacker's argument that if the owner was serious about security he wouldn't have been able to compromise the system.  It's like a robber blaming the victim he shot for not wearing a bulletproof vest.  When all the BS is washed away, the fact still remains that if the perp hadn't broken the law, there would be no crime.

That is not what this is. This comes down to two things.

1/ They are inflating the damage he is accused of by including the cost of putting in the security they should have had in the first place.  The "damage" he did should be determined by the cost to put things back to how they were before he intruded not to put them to how they SHOULD have been.  If they used that value his sentencing would be far less.

2/ These are government and military computers that were supposed to be secured and the administrators did not do so.  I would suspect for the military systems at the least they have a legal obligation.  If a base security officer did not put in a security system and there was an intrusion into secure areas would he not be court martialed?  Why are not the officers responsible for these military computers facing court martial?  Instead they are trying to portray him as a dangerous hacker who severely damaged the computer network - he is merely their scape goat sacrificed to protect themselves. 

Just as I want to see him punished in proportion to his ACTUAL actions, I want to see the administrators punished for their negligence in performing their duties.  Duties that if they are members of the military they swore an oath to do to the best of their ability and if they are civilians they have contracts in which they committed to do the same. 

The hacker is not responsible for the negligence of the administrators in setting up proper security in advance and he should not be held responsible for the expense to set it up now.

[Nemesis]

I'm not sure I agree with this. If we were to charge the SysAdmins do to this guy's activity, then we would be required to charge law enforcement personal for the reckless acts of criminals, or traffic engineers for negligent drivers speeding through a red lights.

Negligent homicide is already a crime.  Negligence in fulfilling your duties should be a crime. 

The thing is I am not proposing the admins be punished for his actions. I am proposing the they be punished for the negligence in not setting up the security they were responsible for.  The duty they accepted with the job and then neglected.

I want him punished for his crimes not for the negligence of the administrators.

What is happening here is if someone entered a bank, looked around and left through the unlocked front door that he entered by.  Then when charged he is held accountable for the bank putting functioning locks on the doors, security lights and security cameras and a vault.  None of those were in place before he entered so why would the burglar be held criminally  responsible for the banks costs in adding them?  That is the equivalent of what this man is facing.  He did minimal harm but is being held responsible for costs for security that was added afterwards but which should have been in place before he intruded.

[toasty0]

It's a tired old hacker's argument that if the owner was serious about security he wouldn't have been able to compromise the system.  It's like a robber blaming the victim he shot for not wearing a bulletproof vest.  When all the BS is washed away, the fact still remains that if the perp hadn't broken the law, there would be no crime.

That is not what this is. This comes down to two things.

1/ They are inflating the damage he is accused of by including the cost of putting in the security they should have had in the first place.  The "damage" he did should be determined by the cost to put things back to how they were before he intruded not to put them to how they SHOULD have been.  If they used that value his sentencing would be far less.

2/ These are government and military computers that were supposed to be secured and the administrators did not do so.  I would suspect for the military systems at the least they have a legal obligation.  If a base security officer did not put in a security system and there was an intrusion into secure areas would he not be court martialed?  Why are not the officers responsible for these military computers facing court martial?  Instead they are trying to portray him as a dangerous hacker who severely damaged the computer network - he is merely their scape goat sacrificed to protect themselves. 

Just as I want to see him punished in proportion to his ACTUAL actions, I want to see the administrators punished for their negligence in performing their duties.  Duties that if they are members of the military they swore an oath to do to the best of their ability and if they are civilians they have contracts in which they committed to do the same. 

The hacker is not responsible for the negligence of the administrators in setting up proper security in advance and he should not be held responsible for the expense to set it up now.

You'tre blaming the victim for criminal's action?

[knightstorm]

I'm not sure I agree with this. If we were to charge the SysAdmins do to this guy's activity, then we would be required to charge law enforcement personal for the reckless acts of criminals, or traffic engineers for negligent drivers speeding through a red lights.

Negligent homicide is already a crime.  Negligence in fulfilling your duties should be a crime. 

The thing is I am not proposing the admins be punished for his actions. I am proposing the they be punished for the negligence in not setting up the security they were responsible for.  The duty they accepted with the job and then neglected.

I want him punished for his crimes not for the negligence of the administrators.

What is happening here is if someone entered a bank, looked around and left through the unlocked front door that he entered by.  Then when charged he is held accountable for the bank putting functioning locks on the doors, security lights and security cameras and a vault.  None of those were in place before he entered so why would the burglar be held criminally  responsible for the banks costs in adding them?  That is the equivalent of what this man is facing.  He did minimal harm but is being held responsible for costs for security that was added afterwards but which should have been in place before he intruded.

If someone got into my house and shot me in my sleep because I forgot to lock the door, it doesn't make him any less guilty.  This guy intended to hack the computers, and he did so.  The negligence of the administrators does not change that.  Even if the damage is inflated by a factor of 10, its still significant.  He should go to jail for the full sentence.

[Vipre]

If someone got into my house and shot me in my sleep because I forgot to lock the door, it doesn't make him any less guilty.  This guy intended to hack the computers, and he did so.  The negligence of the administrators does not change that.  Even if the damage is inflated by a factor of 10, its still significant.  He should go to jail for the full sentence.

Then he should go to jail for the full sentence of "significant damage" not "significant damage to the 10th power". If someone gets into your house then leaves without shooting you in your sleep you charge them with B&E not Murder. They shouldn't face life in prison if all they did was read the labels on your cd collection.

[Nemesis]

You'tre blaming the victim for criminal's action?

No.  I am saying that he should not be blamed for THEIR failure to do their duties.  He is not responsible for the costs to put in the security now that they had an obligation to put in in the first place. 

I'm also saying that they should be held responsible not for his intrusion but for their not doing their duty in setting up and maintainingg the secure system they were obligated to by either their oath as members of the military or the contractual obligations they accepted with the job.

If someone got into my house and shot me in my sleep because I forgot to lock the door, it doesn't make him any less guilty.  This guy intended to hack the computers, and he did so.  The negligence of the administrators does not change that.  Even if the damage is inflated by a factor of 10, its still significant.  He should go to jail for the full sentence.

Sigh.

In the example  you gave the kiler would be responsible for killing you but he would not be responsible for the cost to your estate of putting a lock on your door.  He also would be guilty of illegal entry but NOT breaking and entry as he would not have broken in. 

Once more I am saying he is responsible for entering the systems not for the cost of putting in the security systems that by rights should have been there in the first place.

The decades of hard time that he is threatened with is based not on the damage he did but on the cost of them putting in the security system and doing a system audit to find out what security they needed but did not have in place.  Those things are not his fault, he didn't remove them or destroy them.  They need to be there for general security not because of any action he took and therefore he should not be held responsible for the costs. 

Toasty and Knightstorm answer me this.  Should he be held responsible for the cost of putting in firewalls, impementing passwords and other security systems?  Should his punishment be based on the cost of implementing security on systems that were supposed to be secure and were not or should it be based on his actions?

If someone got into my house and shot me in my sleep because I forgot to lock the door, it doesn't make him any less guilty.  This guy intended to hack the computers, and he did so.  The negligence of the administrators does not change that.  Even if the damage is inflated by a factor of 10, its still significant.  He should go to jail for the full sentence.

Then he should go to jail for the full sentence of "significant damage" not "significant damage to the 10th power". If someone gets into your house then leaves without shooting you in your sleep you charge them with B&E not Murder. They shouldn't face life in prison if all they did was read the labels on your cd collection.

Thank you Vipre.  I'm glad someone gets it.  Now add that Knighstorm forgot to lock the door so it is only illegal entry as breaking in was not required.

[Nemesis]

The way the "damages" blamed on this hacker are inflated reminds me of the first hacker lawsuit I read about.  In it a hacker penetrated a phone company computer and copied a document.  To get the police involved required damages or theft of enough value to make them take the case up.  So they calculated the cost of creating the document.  They took the entire wages of the author for the extended time period in which that was ONE of his projects plus those of his supervisor and assigned that as the cost of the document.  False right off as they both did other things in that time frame not just create one document.  After he was caught and charged he was persuaded to plead guilty to a lesser crime in a plea bargain but it still was life destroying and based on the inflated costs of the document. 

In a related case it came out that another branch of the telephone company had a document with the same facts and sold copies for (I believe it was) $4.95.  At that price the police would not have pursued the case and if he had been caught the crime charged with would not have had a significant sentence.

In both cases the hacker was in the wrong but those he wronged exaggerated things to get him caught and sentenced far more harshly then he otherwise would have been.

[knightstorm]

Breakdown the costs that were used to reach the estimate.  You haven't stated, how much damage can be attributable to the hacker, and how much can't.  Even then, there is still the issue of him illegally accessing DEFENSE DEPARTMENT computers.

[toasty0]

Toasty and Knightstorm answer me this.  Should he be held responsible for the cost of putting in firewalls, impementing passwords and other security systems?  Should his punishment be based on the cost of implementing security on systems that were supposed to be secure and were not or should it be based on his actions?

Without seeming to be playing wordgames here I think I have to answer your question with a question.

Would you feel somehow the a burglar that breaks into your home is any less accountable for his actions because he didn't break out all windows to break into your home?

Now that I think about it for a moment, maybe he should have to shoulder the cost of your reaction and sense of violation...

[Nemesis]

Breakdown the costs that were used to reach the estimate.  You haven't stated, how much damage can be attributable to the hacker, and how much can't. 

That I don't know but I suspect it is close to zero.  I do know that the damages so far have included installing security and since that includes security for entire networks not just those computers he admits to having entered those costs are very high.

Even then, there is still the issue of him illegally accessing DEFENSE DEPARTMENT computers.

Which no one is disputing.  Even he himself has stated his guilt of that.  He disputes that he should be held responsible for the installation of security. 

[Nemesis]

Would you feel somehow the a burglar that breaks into your home is any less accountable for his actions because he didn't break out all windows to break into your home?

Now that I think about it for a moment, maybe he should have to shoulder the cost of your reaction and sense of violation...

There you and I have to disagree.  How the victim feels about the crime should have very little impact on how the crime is punished.  What the criminal did is what they should be punished for.

[toasty0]

Would you feel somehow the a burglar that breaks into your home is any less accountable for his actions because he didn't break out all windows to break into your home?

Now that I think about it for a moment, maybe he should have to shoulder the cost of your reaction and sense of violation...

There you and I have to disagree.  How the victim feels about the crime should have very little impact on how the crime is punished.  What the criminal did is what they should be punished for.

Ok.

[Vipre]

Would you feel somehow the a burglar that breaks into your home is any less accountable for his actions because he didn't break out all windows to break into your home?

Of course not, but if you choose after the break-in to replace all the windows in your house with ones that have "unbreakable" glass you shouldn't be able to claim that expense as damages caused by the burglar. In your question (example) the man should be charged only with B&E and the cost of replacing the window he broke not the cost to replace every window in the house.

[Dracho]

Thank you Vipre.  I'm glad someone gets it.  Now add that Knighstorm forgot to lock the door so it is only illegal entry as breaking in was not required.

Actually, it would be burglary, and that used to carry the death penalty up until the 1960's.  Breaking into an occupied dwelling after hours will get you 20 years, even if you meant no harm.  Breaking in while the owner is away during the day is typical B&E with the lesser sentence.

The point?  It is the law breaker's responsibility to know what is illegal and what isn't, an if you can't do the time, etc..

In this guy's case i suspect what they really want is a loooooooooong conversation about what he did and how.  He'll probably pull 18 months or so in Club Fed.

[toasty0]

Thank you Vipre.  I'm glad someone gets it.  Now add that Knighstorm forgot to lock the door so it is only illegal entry as breaking in was not required.

Actually, it would be burglary, and that used to carry the death penalty up until the 1960's.  Breaking into an occupied dwelling after hours will get you 20 years, even if you meant no harm.  Breaking in while the owner is away during the day is typical B&E with the lesser sentence.

The point?  It is the law breaker's responsibility to know what is illegal and what isn't, an if you can't do the time, etc..

In this guy's case i suspect what they really want is a loooooooooong conversation about what he did and how.  He'll probably pull 18 months or so in Club Fed.

I agree. Never the less, there is a chance that HSD wants to know if he used Alien technology.

[Nemesis]

Thank you Vipre.  I'm glad someone gets it.  Now add that Knighstorm forgot to lock the door so it is only illegal entry as breaking in was not required.

Actually, it would be burglary, and that used to carry the death penalty up until the 1960's.  Breaking into an occupied dwelling after hours will get you 20 years, even if you meant no harm.  Breaking in while the owner is away during the day is typical B&E with the lesser sentence.

The point?  It is the law breaker's responsibility to know what is illegal and what isn't, an if you can't do the time, etc..

In this guy's case i suspect what they really want is a loooooooooong conversation about what he did and how.  He'll probably pull 18 months or so in Club Fed.

In the example given there was no breaking "merely" illegal entry and the crime was in the 1990s not 1960s so applicable law of the time is what should be applied.

The point is still that he should be punished for what he did not for what they did in reaction to it.  He is not responsible for their expenses in putting security on systems that were supposed to have security in the first place.

He has also been quite open about how he did it (perl script using a 56k modem for the connection).  Among the things he is threatened with is not being tried in a civil court.  The appearance is that they want to make an example of him and will actually go for the maximum sentence.  People get sentenced to less for manslaughter and 2nd degree murder. 

[toasty0]

Just curious, Nem. Do you see this guy as some sort of hero? A rogue of sorts?

[Nemesis]

Just curious, Nem. Do you see this guy as some sort of hero? A rogue of sorts?

In no way, he is an admitted criminal and as I keep saying deserves to be punished for what HE DID. 

What I see is someone who committed a crime, admits it and is willing to be punished for it being threatened with punishment way out of proportion to make an example of him.   What I see is inflated damage numbers being set up to ensure that he takes the fall for everything including the negligence of the system adminstrators.

Even criminals can have injustices perpetuated against them by their victims at times.  This appears to me to be one of those times.

Is it wrong to say that a confessed criminal is being threatened with punishment out of proportion to the crime?  Is it wrong to say a criminal should be punished for their crimes not for the negligence of others?

Is McKinnon dangerous enough to lock away in maximum security for the rest of his life with hardened criminals, serial killers and the like?  Is his crime in proportion to theirs?   I don't think so.

[toasty0]

Just curious, Nem. Do you see this guy as some sort of hero? A rogue of sorts?

In no way, he is an admitted criminal and as I keep saying deserves to be punished for what HE DID. 

What I see is someone who committed a crime, admits it and is willing to be punished for it being threatened with punishment way out of proportion to make an example of him.   What I see is inflated damage numbers being set up to ensure that he takes the fall for everything including the negligence of the system adminstrators.

Even criminals can have injustices perpetuated against them by their victims at times.  This appears to me to be one of those times.

Is it wrong to say that a confessed criminal is being threatened with punishment out of proportion to the crime?  Is it wrong to say a criminal should be punished for their crimes not for the negligence of others?

Is McKinnon dangerous enough to lock away in maximum security for the rest of his life with hardened criminals, serial killers and the like?  Is his crime in proportion to theirs?   I don't think so.

Please understand. I was not trying to imply anything. I was just curious and in no way was judging.

Personally, when it comes to knowingly commiting a crime a person should be ready to suffer any consequence handed them. Commiting a crime is not an act of fairness or a sign of consideration for their society or fellow, so no, a person once convicted, should have no expectation of fairness, nor should one be given.

[Nemesis]

Please understand. I was not trying to imply anything. I was just curious and in no way was judging.

Personally, when it comes to knowingly commiting a crime a person should be ready to suffer any consequence handed them. Commiting a crime is not an act of fairness or a sign of consideration for their society or fellow, so no, a person once convicted, should have no expectation of fairness, nor should one be given.

Personally I believe we should have a system of consistent rules   Your sentence should not depend on who you are or who your victim was but on the magnitude of the crime.

Consider the Conrad Black conviction I mentioned earlier.  His fraud was roughly 10 times the damages claimed against McKinnon AND he violated the duties and responsibilities he accepted as an officer of the companies whose assets he used to commit the crime.  McKinnon with 1/10th the alleged damages and no violation of his duties and responsibilities as he had no connection with the victims is faced with 10 times the duration of punishment under harsher conditions.  That is wrong to me. 

Add the Exxon Captain whose damages are several 4 orders of magnitude worse than those McKinnon is accused of yet he had no jail term for his negligence and dereliction of duty, merely 1000 hours of community service and a $50,000 fine.  Why is he not in jail for the next 100,000 years based on damages?  Why is McKinnon nor being fined $5 and told to do 1 hour community service?  The crime did more damage but the sentence was a tiny fraction of what threatens McKinnon.  This is wrong to me, I see no justice.

The fact that McKinnon was offered 4 years of minimum security instead if he didn't fight extradition shows that the prosecution knows the sentence is out of proportion.

Since he did the criminal acts in the U.K. and they are criminal acts there he should have been tried (admission of guilt means I can ignore the be convicted part), sentenced and punished there.  The whole issue would have been over long ago with less expense to everyone involved.  More money is likely being spent on getting him extradited than he is accused of doing in damages.  The prosecution could have made a harsh sentence a condition for dropping the extradition.  There was no need for this whole we MUST try him in the U.S..  Unless you think he really did find the evidence of UFOs that he claims and the U.S. is trying to hide that?

[Dracho]

Ok.. I think I get your point.  You think he should pay for the front door, if he broke it down, but not for installing a new burglar alarm that wasn't in place when the breach took place.  I can see that logic.

[toasty0]

Please understand. I was not trying to imply anything. I was just curious and in no way was judging.

Personally, when it comes to knowingly commiting a crime a person should be ready to suffer any consequence handed them. Commiting a crime is not an act of fairness or a sign of consideration for their society or fellow, so no, a person once convicted, should have no expectation of fairness, nor should one be given.

Personally I believe we should have a system of consistent rules   Your sentence should not depend on who you are or who your victim was but on the magnitude of the crime.

Consider the Conrad Black conviction I mentioned earlier.  His fraud was roughly 10 times the damages claimed against McKinnon AND he violated the duties and responsibilities he accepted as an officer of the companies whose assets he used to commit the crime.  McKinnon with 1/10th the alleged damages and no violation of his duties and responsibilities as he had no connection with the victims is faced with 10 times the duration of punishment under harsher conditions.  That is wrong to me. 

Add the Exxon Captain whose damages are several 4 orders of magnitude worse than those McKinnon is accused of yet he had no jail term for his negligence and dereliction of duty, merely 1000 hours of community service and a $50,000 fine.  Why is he not in jail for the next 100,000 years based on damages?  Why is McKinnon nor being fined $5 and told to do 1 hour community service?  The crime did more damage but the sentence was a tiny fraction of what threatens McKinnon.  This is wrong to me, I see no justice.

The fact that McKinnon was offered 4 years of minimum security instead if he didn't fight extradition shows that the prosecution knows the sentence is out of proportion.

Since he did the criminal acts in the U.K. and they are criminal acts there he should have been tried (admission of guilt means I can ignore the be convicted part), sentenced and punished there.  The whole issue would have been over long ago with less expense to everyone involved.  More money is likely being spent on getting him extradited than he is accused of doing in damages.  The prosecution could have made a harsh sentence a condition for dropping the extradition.  There was no need for this whole we MUST try him in the U.S..  Unless you think he really did find the evidence of UFOs that he claims and the U.S. is trying to hide that?

Just to be clear you're assuming the prosecutor(s) will get what they are seeking. Just because the rposecution asks that he be put away for life does not mean the Judge/Jury will agree. This is right, an extradition so he can stand trial. I'm not sure why you assume he will recieve as severe a sentence as is requested.

[Czar Mohab]

I was going to reply with a long-winded and well written almost-novel about how I feel, but a lot of what I said i can't say. Oath of loyalty or nondisclosure agreement or something like that. Basically, though, if it happens again, it will be big news. Mostly because it would be akin to getting drinking water from the air. Or a 90+ MPG SUV. City, of course. Not impossible, just not very likely.

Part of me says that this guy should get some time in jail, where I really don't care (Norway has a nice prison system, IIRC). He did break the law, after all. 70 years, however, is much too much. 1-2... maybe a month for every 100 lives he endangered.

The other part of me says give the guy a cookie. Seriously. He helped find the holes we needed to fix. Just a cookie though. One of those giant novelty ones that you usually find in truck stops or gift shops in airports, but whichever flavor he wants (He's British, right? Maybe "flavour"). Keep the cookie out of the public view, though, since he's such a "bad guy". The intent wasn't malicious. Heck, the feds should have just emailed him some fake UFO stuff. Cookie enough for me.

Czar "I'm not a lawyer" Mohab

[Nemesis]

Just to be clear you're assuming the prosecutor(s) will get what they are seeking. Just because the rposecution asks that he be put away for life does not mean the Judge/Jury will agree. This is right, an extradition so he can stand trial. I'm not sure why you assume he will recieve as severe a sentence as is requested.

Search this thread for the word "threatened" and you have your answer.

The other part of me says give the guy a cookie. Seriously. He helped find the holes we needed to fix. Just a cookie though. One of those giant novelty ones that you usually find in truck stops or gift shops in airports, but whichever flavor he wants (He's British, right? Maybe "flavour"). Keep the cookie out of the public view, though, since he's such a "bad guy". The intent wasn't malicious. Heck, the feds should have just emailed him some fake UFO stuff. Cookie enough for me.

Czar "I'm not a lawyer" Mohab

The systems attacked were fortunate in that he was not malicious and highly skilled.  So are all the people potentially affected by this.  Hopefully not just these systems but all  other government and military networks will get the hint and work on protecting things.  Not just in the U.S. either.

I say put him in jail in proportion to what he did and the ongoing danger he represents.  Since it appears the danger is low then that would mean a low security prison with other non dangerous offenders.

An example of how "skilled" a hacker he was.

Link to full article

Using a limited 56K dial-up modem and the hacking name "Solo" he found many US security systems used an insecure Microsoft Windows programme with no password protection.

He then bought off-the-shelf software and scanned military networks, saying he found expert testimonies from senior figures reporting that technology obtained from extra-terrestrials did exist.

He didn't even have his own internet connection.  I would say at least 1/3 of the people here if they dedicated themselves to it could achieve the same level of "hacking skill" in 3 months.  It is why I don't think he is really dangerous.

[Czar Mohab]

I don't have the liberty to say what I know about how the system works now.

This kinda covers it.

Czar "I'm with you, Nem, honest" Mohab

P.S. Can he have a cookie in the big house? Some good did come from it.

[Nemesis]

I don't have the liberty to say what I know about how the system works now.

This kinda covers it.

Czar "I'm with you, Nem, honest" Mohab

P.S. Can he have a cookie in the big house? Some good did come from it.

If he had done what he did to force solving of the security issues then maybe but he did not.  If he had been able to expose some type of "government conspiracy" such as the was looking for then again maybe.

One thing to remember about this "skilled" hacker is much of his hacking was done while drinking beer and smoking joints so it is unclear what if anything he actually saw and where he saw it.  He might have seen a list of "non terrestrial officers" as he claimed but if he did it likely included Captain S. Carter. 

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

Leni de Abreu Neto, 35, of Taubate, Brazil, allegedly maintained and leased access to a 100,000-strong botnet network of compromised PCs that he subsequently attempted to sell, according to an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in New Orleans. If convicted, Neto faces up to five years imprisonment as well as fines and restitution payments of more than $250,000.

MacKinnon is supposed to have entered 90+ computers and is threatened with decades in jail.  This guy (allegedly) entered and took control of 100,000 computers for illegal purposes and is threatened with UP TO 5 years.  Whose crime was of greater magnitude yet who is threatened with the harsher sentence? 

[knightstorm]

Link to full article

Leni de Abreu Neto, 35, of Taubate, Brazil, allegedly maintained and leased access to a 100,000-strong botnet network of compromised PCs that he subsequently attempted to sell, according to an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in New Orleans. If convicted, Neto faces up to five years imprisonment as well as fines and restitution payments of more than $250,000.

MacKinnon is supposed to have entered 90+ computers and is threatened with decades in jail.  This guy (allegedly) entered and took control of 100,000 computers for illegal purposes and is threatened with UP TO 5 years.  Whose crime was of greater magnitude yet who is threatened with the harsher sentence? 

Which one of the two attacked a department of the United States Federal Government.

[toasty0]

Link to full article

Leni de Abreu Neto, 35, of Taubate, Brazil, allegedly maintained and leased access to a 100,000-strong botnet network of compromised PCs that he subsequently attempted to sell, according to an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in New Orleans. If convicted, Neto faces up to five years imprisonment as well as fines and restitution payments of more than $250,000.

MacKinnon is supposed to have entered 90+ computers and is threatened with decades in jail.  This guy (allegedly) entered and took control of 100,000 computers for illegal purposes and is threatened with UP TO 5 years.  Whose crime was of greater magnitude yet who is threatened with the harsher sentence? 

Oh boo hoo. Just cause gets a break both should? Both should hjave their arse kicked.  I know two wrongs don't make a right, niether does one right make a wrong.

[Nemesis]

Which one of the two attacked a department of the United States Federal Government.

With 100,000 computers controlled and the attacks likely automated do you really think there were no U.S. Federal government computers taken over?  I'd say the odds were that at the very least he (allegedly) ATTACKED many of them whether he got in or not. 

Also remember he(allegedly)  took control of more than 1000 times as many computers.  Is that less a crime just because none of them were government?  He also (allegedly) conspired to use them for further attacks which heightens the crime. 

I don't see justice here.

[Nemesis]

Oh boo hoo. Just cause gets a break both should? Both should hjave their arse kicked.  I know two wrongs don't make a right, niether does one right make a wrong.

Ever hear about JUSTICE toasty?  Part of justice is you commit a crime and your punishment is comparable to others who commit the same or equivalent crimes.    That is the whole point here, one of these guys  at the very least is not getting justice. 

Why should the guy who (allegedly) penetrated and took control of 1000 times as many computers get less than 1/10 the sentence (likely to be served under minumum rather than maximum security) of the other guy?  Without a valid reason for it I don't see justice.

[knightstorm]

Which one of the two attacked a department of the United States Federal Government.

With 100,000 computers controlled and the attacks likely automated do you really think there were no U.S. Federal government computers taken over?  I'd say the odds were that at the very least he (allegedly) ATTACKED many of them whether he got in or not. 

Also remember he(allegedly)  took control of more than 1000 times as many computers.  Is that less a crime just because none of them were government?  He also (allegedly) conspired to use them for further attacks which heightens the crime. 

I don't see justice here.

Yes, I do think its likely that none of the compromised computers was government.  As for whether or not the computers are owned by the federal government makes the attack more serious, the answer is yes.

[toasty0]

Oh boo hoo. Just cause gets a break both should? Both should hjave their arse kicked.  I know two wrongs don't make a right, niether does one right make a wrong.

Ever hear about JUSTICE toasty?  Part of justice is you commit a crime and your punishment is comparable to others who commit the same or equivalent crimes.    That is the whole point here, one of these guys  at the very least is not getting justice. 

Why should the guy who (allegedly) penetrated and took control of 1000 times as many computers get less than 1/10 the sentence (likely to be served under minumum rather than maximum security) of the other guy?  Without a valid reason for it I don't see justice.

We agree Nem. The guy who got the easy sentence did not "get his justice".

[Nemesis]

We agree Nem. The guy who got the easy sentence did not "get his justice".

Then neither did any on this list.

The longest sentence being 108 months.  Some of them attacked military computers so where are their decades in jail?

The guy who wrote the Melissa virus got 20 months and was supposed to have done $80 million in damages.  (knightstorm It also affected U.S. government computers).  Where are his decades in jail?

Why should MacKinnon be singled out and threatened with decades of maximum security (or even be tried by a military court as has been threatened)?  By the precedents of all these other cases he is not being treated the same way and for there to be justice he should be treated comparably to others who were convicted of similar crimes. 

The precedent has been set that hacking computers leads to less than 10 years in jail at the most and I doubt very much they normally serve time in maximum security as they are not physically dangerous people.  Justice demands equal treatment and MacKinnon is at the very least being threatened with an unjust sentence as determined by the precedents set by the U.S. court system.

[toasty0]

We agree Nem. The guy who got the easy sentence did not "get his justice".

The guy who wrote the Melissa virus got 20 months and was supposed to have done $80 million in damages.  (knightstorm It also affected U.S. government computers).  Where are his decades in jail?

Why should MacKinnon be singled out and threatened with decades of maximum security (or even be tried by a military court as has been threatened)?  By the precedents of all these other cases he is not being treated the same way and for there to be justice he should be treated comparably to others who were convicted of similar crimes. 

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over? Everyone who has tried answer you have been dismissed.

Do you really care what anyone else thinks about this, or do you just want to make you point about the unfiarness of it all again?

[Fedman NCC-3758]

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over?

Because he forgot?

Just say Uncle.

[knightstorm]

We agree Nem. The guy who got the easy sentence did not "get his justice".

Then neither did any on this list.

The longest sentence being 108 months.  Some of them attacked military computers so where are their decades in jail?

The guy who wrote the Melissa virus got 20 months and was supposed to have done $80 million in damages.  (knightstorm It also affected U.S. government computers).  Where are his decades in jail?

Why should MacKinnon be singled out and threatened with decades of maximum security (or even be tried by a military court as has been threatened)?  By the precedents of all these other cases he is not being treated the same way and for there to be justice he should be treated comparably to others who were convicted of similar crimes. 

The precedent has been set that hacking computers leads to less than 10 years in jail at the most and I doubt very much they normally serve time in maximum security as they are not physically dangerous people.  Justice demands equal treatment and MacKinnon is at the very least being threatened with an unjust sentence as determined by the precedents set by the U.S. court system.

The cases you posted are the sentences handed out.  I doubt this guy will get the maximum sentence that they are seeking.  In fact the prosecutors are probably making these statements in an attempt to frighten him into taking a plea bargain so it doesn't have to go to trial.

[Nemesis]

Why do you keep asking the same question over and over? Everyone who has tried answer you have been dismissed.

Do you really care what anyone else thinks about this, or do you just want to make you point about the unfiarness of it all again?

When we discussed this before there were no other similar crimes put forward.  When I stumbled across the one then found more while looking for further info on it there were new information points relative to the discussion.  More information makes for a valid reconsidering of the discussion. 

If I had found other similar cases with similar sentening to what he is threatened with it would have changed my opinion, instead I found more evidence that he is being threatened with sentencing far out of proportion to what others who committed similar crimes faced.

The cases you posted are the sentences handed out.  I doubt this guy will get the maximum sentence that they are seeking.  In fact the prosecutors are probably making these statements in an attempt to frighten him into taking a plea bargain so it doesn't have to go to trial.

Except for one thing.  He admits he did it already, no plea bargain needed. 

The threats were originally to get him to not fight extradition but haven't been dropped now that they have won extradition.  If they had charged him In the U.K. as he wanted he could have been tried, convicted and jailed already likely with a sentence comparable to people jailed for similar crimes in the U.S. not the excessive one he is threatened with..

[toasty0]

Looses appeal

It alleges that between February 2001 and March 2002, he hacked into dozens of US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Defense computers, as well as 16 Nasa computers.

Prosecutors say he altered and deleted files at a naval air station not long after the 11 September attacks in 2001, rendering critical systems inoperable.


So, it DOES look like he endangered millions of lives by his action. No sympathy here for this cry baby, Nem.