Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4715612.stm
Quote:
"I found out that the US military use Windows," said Mr McKinnon in that BBC interview. "And having realised this, I assumed it would probably be an easy hack if they hadn't secured it properly."
Interesting the fact an UK citizen can be extradited from his home country to face trial in a foreign country for a crime he committed while in UK.
EDIT: And up to 70 years for what he did? Are they insane and truly wish to put to jail for the rest of his life an hacker (not even a cracker he was)?
maybe it has something to do with the US and the uk being allies and if the military saw this as an attack this could be asserted as a crime in both countries?
I don't know, hacking military computers, secure or not, would bring about some bad attention.
I bet 50 he'll "disappear" X-Files style.
US law is clear. The crime takes place at the point of the crime, not at the point of commision of the crimal act. If I fire a bullet from georgia and it kills a man in south carolina, the crime (manslaughter/murder) took place in SC.
If I send internet packets from the UK and it causes system instability in the US, the crime (hacking) took place in the US. Since the initial act is not illegal, only the end result.
Besides, he commited the crime in the Jurisdiction of the US
Yes. I was thinking about that just now. But still it would be necessary for UK to accept that foreign law (which apparently it does).
No matter what, it's the government task to protect his citizens and necessarily fight against such extraditions always preferring to trial and have them face sentence in their home country. If the crime had been particularly serious, I would think it would make sense. But this bloke?
USA has a better tradition of protecting his citizens against extradition, than UK apparently.
Anyone else think he'll cop a plea to work for the US doing the same thing to other countries?
This could be more like job recruitment than prosecution. Sign him up.
Just another daft aspect of Mr. Blair's love affair with Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
The UK & USA signed an extradition treaty to supposedly make it easier to extradite people between countries.
There used to be a need for the USA to provide prima facie evidence to allow them to extradite a British Citizen. This treaty did away with that.
The difference is:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
UK - sentence under Computer Misuse Act - 5 Years in prison & unlimited fine
USA - 60 (or 70 - depends which journalist is counting) Years and treated as a terrorist.
The crimes are certainly against UK law and could be tried here, but they are making an example of him and the UK Govt is allowing it to happen.
Geebus! That's over 50 years in difference minimum!
Bet he can sue the hell of UK government in the European Court of Human Rights if he ever gets the ruling to be extradited. If I'm not mistaken by filing the complain alone he will stop the extradition.
The problem with this USA administration (and some of the hawks still in a position to pull these type of strings) is that chauffeurs, disgruntled Australian citizens, and low note British hackers is the best they can come up with in their quest to find the responsible for 07/11. It's becoming a sad circus that is already nauseating the rest of the world. I really can't wait for December!
>>Bet he can sue the hell of UK government in the European Court of Human Rights if he ever gets the ruling to be extradited. If I'm not mistaken by filing the complain alone he will stop the extradition.
It's already been tested in the ECoHR and failed. Lookup the "Natwest 3"
I wouldn't call it quits though Fordy. The fact he risks facing a sentence over 10x more what he would face in UK is a strong case in his defense. Extradition laws exist usually under some considerations of equal or similar treatment and rulings.
Over here for instance - as in UK, I'm pretty sure regarding extradition to a number of other countries - a Portuguese citizen (even if with double nationality) can only be extradited to the USA if the crime he committed over there doesn't risk death sentence and he also doesn't risk a jail sentence over the maximum jail sentence currently in Portugal (25 years). On any other case he gets tried and faces sentence in Portugal. This bloke could never be extradited to USA.
In any case, were I him I would do anything to not have to face an American court of law on these charges and with this type of potential sentence. With all due respect to my fellow Americans who I don't think have anything to do with it - and paraphrasing you-know-who - I think the country is currently being ran by "drunk people".
OK, the fact is there is no vast terrorist conspiracy, but you can't tell the public that. The fact that 9/11 was perpetrated by 12 angry men would scare the crap out of everyone, they couldnt handle it. Its much easier to tell them those 12 guys were just the boobs working for 'Al Qaeda'. Because if you can identify the enemy, he becomes much less scary. The fact that the fabric of society is coming apart at the seams, we are repeating the conditions that led to The Great Depression and the refusal of the wealthy to accept limits on their economic activities, sounds like a bunch of high brow doomsaying and is easily dismissed.
Well you have more faith in his chances than I do. The Natwest 3 case I mentioned involved 3 bankers involved in a fraud based in America (linked to Enron) that defrauded a UK bank. At that time the treaty was signed at our end without going through parliament but wasnt enforceable on American citizens (it was still being debated by the Senate) and every possible appeal avenue was made - including the European Court of Human Rights and the House of Lords. Most people expected someone to stop the extradition because it was so one sided, but it went through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
In 2006 the Senate ratified the treaty so it became enforceable at both ends. Following that, the only chance you have of not being extradited under similar circumstances is if the UK CPS decides to prosecute you in the UK (which it has refused to do in both of the cases mentioned) or if the Government over here decided to rip up the treaty.
You and the terrorists both. They long for an administration weaker even than Clinton, that will prosecute acts of terrorism as civil crime, give away intelligence, and turn a blind eye to the mounting threat as the UK is today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
>>turn a blind eye to the mounting threat as the UK is today
How did you come to that conclusion?
Well, the beauty of law (and the most awful thing about it), is that "the law is an ass" and its meaning is down to the interpretation of whoever reads it. Lawyer A reads paragraph B and gets interprets C, while a similarly minded lawyer reads B and sees D. If you pay someone enough they can argue anything for you in court. While I don't agree with what he did (and I don't doubt that he put a friendly spin on the story), and assuming we have the whole story (which for 13 months work seems unlikely), it seems harsh. Like everything (sexism, racism etc), the actual existance and strength of the act itself is decided upon by the victim.
If the law was a program there would be multiple definition errors all over the place.
I suspect he used this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fordy
Oh! That was precious, medievalelks.
Just the frame of mind you folks need over there. More ruling through fear. As if you didn't have enough of that for the past 8 years. I'm pretty sure the next administration - in case McCain doesn't make it, which seems to be the case - is not going to be kind to terrorist activity either. But you seem to think otherwise. No doubt fitting of your desire for more of the same, since you feel more secure today than you did 8 years ago, don't you? Now that you have more terrorist activity in the world than ever before in world history, and USA citizens face more hatred today and anti-American BS than ever before in their history.
Good luck then. Don't forget to cast you vote.
At this point I think Hitler could win the presidency with Pol Pot as his running mate. Their campaign slogan coudl be 'We will kill everyone that might be a terrorist'. Which of ocurse is everyone.
Terrorism isnt like a wolf at the door, its like roaches in your cubbard's. Yes, its your house and you can do whatever you want, but if you throw your trash in the corner, it will attract roaches. You can certainly kill them, poison them, do a million things to reduce their occurance, but until you remove the conditions that produce them in the first place, you will always have roaches.
I've seen it with 8 years of Clinton. Try to blow up the WTC? Fine, we'll try you in court and reveal to bin Laden how we caught you and others with our surveillance methods, and who else we're looking for. Nice work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
And by the way, the US and US interests abroad have gone longer without a terrorist attack than any time in recent history. So, terrorism is down here, where the effort is being made.
I find this report disturbing:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fordy
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=33182
And that means we are turning a blind eye to terrorism...?Quote:
Originally Posted by medievalelks
LOL, you havent got a clue...
Stoped reading at the word POLL you shoudl have too. POLL == opinion of a random or not so random sample of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by medievalelks
Regardless of the extradition thing, the sentence alone is an example of where American law is going wrong. There seems to be this notion that by endlessly increasing the punishment for crime crime will be deterred.
The problem with that is that if you are a hacker then logic would dictate that you may as well be a murderer while you're at it. Personally I'd rather fry in the chair then spend the rest of my life in jail.
And, how much is it going to cost to keep this guy locked up?
I think that's an oversimplification of polling, which can be good or bad depending on the method used.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
Poll's are dubious at best in any serious discussion. There arent enough muslim students in any university to make a statistically significant sampling. The accuracy of a poll is inversly proportional to the percentage of the population you didn't sample. Even if they sampeld 100% of the population it is still an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by medievalelks
But -- the point is to find the opinions of the people. What kind of point are you trying to make here -- people don't know their own minds?Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
And 600 people = +/- 4 percentage points, regardless of the actual number in the population. (Or more to the point: we are 95% confident that the true proportion of students holding those ideas are within four percentage points from the numbers given.)
Right, the poll question asked their opinions on matters of religiously justified murder. So, they got opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler
Which has nothing to do with 'Extremism Among Muslim Students'.Quote:
Originally Posted by medievalelks
How is extremism defined, where the questions loaded, where the responses truthful, i.e. was the setting conducive to serious responses or was it one of those off the cuff sidewalk interviews? Was it scientifically conducted using double blind methods?
Sorry, but you need to stop reading after the word POLL. If it was a serious study it owudl be called a study, not a poll.
Double blind methods?! For a poll?? Do you even know what these words mean? (Hint: The answer is no, unless you can think of a way to get meaningful answers when you are not even telling the subjects what the questions are.) (Edit: Or I suppose you can waste some questions by giving half your respondents a completely bogus survey. But I don't see how that helps either.)Quote:
Originally Posted by abachler