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.
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.
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...
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.
Well we need the financial instruments at least. If there were a way to get all that stuff without all the banker aftertaste, I'd be interested.
I'd be totally cool with a system that just went entirely by the numbers and I logged on the Internet to ask for a mortgage based on my credit score. Naturally we might need a more objective (and open) credit score system for that among a host of other things, but hey I can dream.
When everything in live resolves around money then you will always blame the dealer. Just how things go. It is when goverments repocess the banks is when you truely worry.
Also people blame banks in general as they don't feel they have learned there leasons, yet at the same time complain they can't borrow more money. We do need bankers, they also need us.
I understand what your implying about the time factor in this. Week after we got somebody extradited, who we all wanted extradited, so yeah, funny that. But common sence does seem to be prevailing, albeit in a sloooow way.
Remember bankers are people too, they also have the power to be as stupid as any other person. Just a bit more impacting upon mine and yours pockets compared to somebody logging into a insecure system over 10 years ago and hurting nobody else accept there pride.
and yet, ironically, if it had been an englishman, anything unpleasant would have been cheered on by the scots (for those who are unaware - casual anti-english 'racism' is absolutely common, accepted, unquestioned).
i lived and worked in scotland for a couple of years.
In some cases it's a genuine dislike (and worth noting that it's one way or at least stronger in one direction - the English are largely indifferent to the Scots) but in most cases these days it's more a more casual comedy thing, similar to the way the English dislike the French - they don't really but it's fun to have a frenemy.
As with most prejudice it goes largely with education (or lack of). I'd suggest that anyone who had an opinion on McKinnon (or any similar case) would probably be open minded and informed enough not to really be biased.
Just a mild defence of my adopted home - I'm English living in Glasgow and have never seen or experienced any genuine anti-English racism.
But we'll see just how many Scots want shot of the English in a couple of years when we get the independence vote. Current polls suggest that they're not so anti-English that they want to go their own way...
but in most cases these days it's more a more casual comedy thing, similar to the way the English dislike the French - they don't really but it's fun to have a frenemy.
I think this is totally accurate, but I worry this subtly is lost on some people, and especially kids. I'm English, and lived in Scotland between the age of 10 and 14, and the genuine anti-English victimization I received both at school and out and about was ridiculous. It never bothered me, perhaps because I don't really consider myself, "English" having (at that point) never lived there, but I remember being genuinely shocked. I expect it's much the same a French child would experience coming to school at that age in the UK.
Kids see their parents or comedians mock the English/French, but don't necessarily distinguish between, "banter" and genuine disdain. Hopefully those kids grow up to identify that difference, although some of the experiences I had would suggest this may not always be the case.
> I'm English, and lived in Scotland between the age of 10 and 14, and the genuine anti-English victimization I received both at school and out and about was ridiculous
But please don't make out that this only happens in Scotland. I'm Scottish but went to school in England and had a similar experience.
While banter between Scotland and England as countries has been going on for centuries, the idea that all (or even most) Scottish people would be happy to see an individual tormented just because he's English is, well, that's just you being a bigot.
Not nonsense at all. Anti-English racism is rife in Scotland, all too vocal, all too public, except of course when they're asking for English handouts.
> except of course when they're asking for English handouts
Ah, the myth of the English handout, somewhere between massively unclear and nonsense.
Yes some of Scotland's current spending is subsidised by oil revenue which won't last for ever but when that money was flowing south during the 80s I don't recall the English complaining about it as unsustainable. The UK treasury would of course question that those revenues are entirely Scottish though I'm not clear on what grounds other than political expediency.
Stephanie Flanders of the BBC on the subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16477990 (also makes the point that taking oil out of the equation Scotland's subsidy isn't massively out of line with many parts of England).
Scot here. Majority of that "anti-english" racism would have been in gest, part of the banter. I've moved around several parts of Scotland and can confirm that it is just part of the humour landscape. Most Scottish people have no problem with England or English people. (I understand the media's portrayal of the independence debate may sully this, but independence it about more than getting away from England 305 years later). British people could be held to the same standard in our treatment of Germany with a constant berating of WWII jokes, however we in-fact have no issue with Germany and realise it was a long time ago.
I personally don't take offence at the anti-English banter.
But, I challenge you to engage in the same kind of banter with Asians, blacks, or homosexuals, etc, and let me know how that pans out for you.
Is there a material difference, apart from the fact that English people don't take offence? In my opinion, anti-English statements don't really offend because a sense of Englishness is felt much less by an Englishman compared to how a Scot would feel his/her Scottishness. We're just not a very nationalistic buch.
I do agree that most Scottish people have no problem with English folk. On a personal level, it is just "banter". The more distateful sentiments are aimed at England as a nation, as far as I have experienced.
OK, let's do why anti-white (or anti-English) sentiment isn't the same as anti-black sentiment.
The issue isn't banter, it's that in some cases historical context gives "banter" overtones of something far more serious.
The Scots didn't buy and sell the English as property as recently as 100 years ago (did you know Britain only abolished slavery in parts of Nigeria in 1936?), the English didn't have their behaviour outlawed in the way homosexuals have (and they still don't have equality in the UK though it's getting closer) and the English can't make any claim that given a particular level of intelligence or ability they are less likely to go to university and more likely to end up in prison the way that would be the case if they were black.
Being English in Scotland offers no genuine sacrifice, disadvantage or oppression and hasn't for a long long time if ever. The same isn't true of any of the minority groups you mention.
So banter is fine and if you're English in Scotland it is just banter.
If you're in another minority group with a more difficult history then you need to consider that banter often hides or raises the spectre of something worse which makes it a very different thing.
So, based on the context you have described, it is impossible for me to experience racism in Scotland under the veil of "banter". It can only be just a joke?
That's not what I said at all and I suspect you know it.
What I'm saying is that taking what often gets said between English and Scots and drawing a parallel to how they might be seen if directed towards the minority groups you mention isn't a valid comparison.
A history of discrimination can give certain remarks a very different meaning. Context is everything and centuries of oppression is quite some context and doesn't exist between the English and Scots (at least not in a way that the English can have any issue with).
So does this not mean that a white person in (say) Nigeria would not be able to claim they were experiencing racism if they were targeted because of their skin colour? [I'm not, in any way trying to be inflammatory]
I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I'm not sure historical context gives a perfect mechanism to categorize racism or banter, but it does give a lot of weight, certainly.
The lack of historical discrimination doesn't preclude discrimination happening now, and the existence of it doesn't preclude the possibility that banter can just be banter and be taken as such on both sides.
What it does mean is that you can't just assume that the same words or behaviour means the same thing when directed at different groups.
The specific example I was responding to said try saying some of the things a Scot might say to and Englishman to a black person and see how far you get. My response to that is you can say the same words in the same tone of voice but it doesn't mean the same thing as everything that came before and goes along with those words is different.
I'm not saying that Scots can't be genuinely prejudiced against English (in a small number of cases they are - there are arseholes in every society), I'm saying what is acceptable or unacceptable between Scots and English is not the same as what's acceptable between white people and black people.
To turn it the other way around, I'm sure it wouldn't take much to find something I could say to a Scot about their history which would be horribly insulting but wouldn't be remotely offensive to, say, an Asian.
Does the fact that the Asian man didn't find it insulting make it OK to say to the Scot?
You should be aware that exactly the same sort of banter is directed by English people at Welsh, Scots, French, Americans and practically every other nation living in England (I've experienced some of this myself as a Scot living in England), it is exactly the same in tone and intent as ribbing of English people in Scotland, and yes, sometimes it does have a nasty edge to it in any country, esp. when it is directed in a general way at an entire nation/race.
Silly, and sometimes ignorant, but there we are, that's patriotism for you; the last refuge of the scoundrel, as an erudite Englishman once said - you should hear what he had to say about the benighted scots...
Having lived in a few places, I'd say people everywhere like to generalise about other nations and tell themselves they know what 'those people' are like, I've done it myself a few times, and I've always been wrong when I did.
That's not the opinion of this Scot, at least. On that note, I have personally experienced similar treatment from English colleagues in a foreign country. And yet, it was an Englishman that gave me the job I'm still working in.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with the principle that trial should be where the crime is committed but this isn't a clear cut case for that criteria and there is in my view a strong argument that the crime took place in the US (the computers he misused were there and he knew it) even though Gary was in the UK.
That doesn't necessarily mean that Gary should have been extradited but the grounds for not doing so should be different. Health is the stated reason and I don't intend to argue with it not knowing his precise medical details.
I would say that for this case that either venue is reasonable.
For the Richard O'Dwyer case and also the now complete Natwest bankers case there is from what I understand little reason to see the US as the appropriate jurisdiction. On the recent terrorist cases I haven't read much but it sounded as if in at least one case there were accusations of setting up training camps in the US making that reasonable cause for extradition but that perhaps for one or more of the others the US link was significantly weaker.
> I agree with the principle that trial should be where the crime is committed but this isn't a clear cut case for that criteria and there is in my view a strong argument that the crime took place in the US (the computers he misused were there and he knew it) even though Gary was in the UK.
Indeed. It's no different to firing a rocket over an international border.
Nah. The general principle is that the location of a crime is the place where the "harm" occurred. Thus the Lockerbie bomber was tried in Scotland, not in Libya.
There were probably two sets of crimes. The activity he performed in the UK, which could be "seen" by observation during activity in the place where he did it and compared against UK law. And the "damage" done in the US, during and after his activity.
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.
The negligence in this case is stunning. His 'hack' was to write a Perl script which scanned a range of IPs, looking for remote access accounts that did not have a password. So, the compromised machines were:
- connected to the public internet, with a publicly routable address
- not firewalled
- running remote access software without a password
I strongly believe the strength of feeling shown by the US authorities here is primarily one of embarrassment. It is more comforting to believe you are facing a genius superhacker than it is to believe the people responsible for your network security are literally incompetent.
Also, while he was logged in to these machines he had notepad.exe-based conversations with other hackers - he was definitely not the only person who accessed these systems.
My understanding is that they used the £500k they said the hack cost to plug the security holes. In an interview I saw a while ago it basically said he walked in through the front door, the "Administrator" account did not have a password and the computers in question were accessible remotely.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
The people standing up want to talk next. The Speaker chooses who does speak next, in a kind of opaque way. Senior gov officials are usually favoured over back-benchers.
They stand up to "catch the speakers eye" and indicate to the Speaker (the chairperson who mediates the debate) that they would like to ask a question of the home secretary.
The houses actually run fairly well, and part of the reason why is traditions like this. I would happily take this over the American system for example, where there is no back and forward because people have to go to a microphone to talk...
If you talk to some backbench MPs (usually opposition and/or minority parties) you will find that they (claim to) struggle to get the (partisan) speaker to allot time for them to speak, particularly in high-profile debates and sessions.
There are over 600 MPs, that's always going to be an issue.
It's worth noting that the chamber of the house isn't the only way to influence proceedings. Recent years have seen a return to prominence of many of the select committees comprised of backbench MPs selected independently of the party whips.
The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee was front and centre during the phone hacking scandal and any bill put before parliament will have gone in front of a committee before it gets there.
The current speaker was the first the be voted in in an exhaustive ballot suggesting that he's likely had more support (or at least more consensus) than previous speakers.
Where he's disliked it's largely by those in his own party who don't like one or more of his own political move from the right towards the centre (and not just since being speaker), his Labour supporting wife or in some cases either his more humble beginnings than some of his Conservative colleagues or his own apparent ego. To me much of the criticism seems to stem from personal and political divisions within the Conservative party as Bercow's performance.
You're never going to get an entirely impartial speaker given that this is someone who ran as a political candidate for one party or another but I think you need to consider the criticisms in the light of who it's coming from.
> You're never going to get an entirely impartial speaker given that this is someone who ran as a political candidate for one party
I think thats the main problem. He/she acts as a moderator, and I struggle to think of any other forum where a moderator has such a glaring potential for the appearance bias (whether exerted or not). On the plus side he is elected, on the other-hand its by MPs and not the public.
Its not just an issue with the current speaker, similar allegations are levelled at most. Fewer with Betty perhaps, some say because she was a "mother figure" who was well liked and commanded respect, others say she was vicious if you spoke out about her and it wasn't worth it.
You could at least create the appearance of order by creating an electronic system that registers the desire to speak, then selects speakers at random and/or in order of request or seniority, automatically alerting the chairperson at certain intervals to ensure a fair distribution of time.
This is pretty much what the Speaker does. The Speaker knows most of the MPs personally, knows where their expertise lies, whether they will have something valuable to add to the debate, etc.
Until relatively recently two collapsible opera hats were maintained for the use of members who wished to raise a point of order. I think even the Reverend Dogson might have considered that a little peculiar.
This was put to an end by "Early Day Motion 1623: Top Hats and Parliamentary Procedure" [1]
Quote: "That this House believes the procedure whereby honourable Members are required to wear a top hat or other suitable head covering during certain proceedings on the floor of the House should be ended; calls upon the Select Committee on Procedure to recommend ending the practice; and believes that this whole procedure brings the House into disrepute across the world."
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.
"Moral decisions"? In modern British politics? Unless you're talking about Robin Cook or David Davies, it's really hard to find any "moral" motivation behind political moves, and this is no exception.
This was an easy and popular choice to take. McKinnon was not a threat, and the US "World Police" stance has weakened a lot since the GWB days. Even better, it's an election year in the US in which an incumbent President has to motivate a disillusioned left wing; he really doesn't need the backlash following a potentially unpopular extradition.
The point had already been made: subjects of the Empire (which Western Europeans people are, de facto, especially if living in Britain) who dare attacking US military infrastructure, even in jest, will be hunted, and their lives made miserable. Whether they're actually going to be sent to Gitmo is irrelevant in practice: McKinnon's life is forever compromised on many, many levels.
So, in practice, Obama(/H.Clinton) doesn't give a rat's ass about McKinnon, and the Coalition has enough problems as it is, there's a good chance to score some cheap political capital, so why pass on it? Add to that the recent announcement about opting out of some EU laws, and you can see that May is positioning herself as friendly towards the right wing, classically "individualist" Tory faction which is currently threatening to "tea party" Cameron, and all without spending any money (which, in government, is always the best sort of action). I don't think there's anything "moral" in that; it's just another day in UK politics.
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.
I think this is all about the publicity. Otherwise she would have done it sooner. Ironic too that she cites the European Court of Human Rights as to the reasoning, whereas as only yesterday she was lambasting European Courts and legislation for stealing our sovereignty.
I find her insidious and duplicitous. When did we last have a Home Secretary who wasn't a careerist authoritarian?
Nevertheless I strongly suspect that today a life has been saved and hopefully from now on we can apply rationale to our extraditions.
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.
Aside from both cases being extremely political, the reasons that both were/are fighting extradition are quite different (mental illness vs. political machinations). Extradition to EU countries is also often viewed differently to the US by the public and politicians, as we both fall under EU law and it is perhaps more like transferring a suspect between states in the US.
In neither case is our (UK) government acting in a fair, impartial and democratic way. /sweeping statement
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.
I can think of a number of differences between the cases (I'm not in a position to say which, if any, factored into the decisions of either the courts or the home secretary):
* McKinnon is a British citizen, Assange is not.
* If proven, Assange's crimes were in Sweden. IMO, the jurisdiction(s) McKinnon should be subject to is less clear - he was in the UK, but the targeted network was in the US.
* McKinnon was fighting extradition due to mental illness and protection of his human rights; Assange was fighting over EAW procedures/political extradition etc. (I can't remember the exact legal argument put forward).
* Assange is to be extradited with the EU. Very broadly speaking, this means that the legal systems and human rights protections are more closely aligned (for example, both the UK and Sweden are subject to EU law, and both have ratified the ECHR). This influences both political and public perception of the extradition.
* Various other political considerations (e.g. Assange's association with WikiLeaks).
* The crimes of which they are accused - I suspect that accessing the US government network is perceived by the public to be largely a victimless crime (in that it is not possible to say a specific person was harmed by the actions), but sexual assault obviously is not.
As far as I am aware, the courts reached effectively the same decision in both cases. The final decision is extradite or not is taken by the Home Secretary, so is to some extent a political decision.
The court made the same decision in both cases. Home Secretary did not make any decision (in favor or against) Assange extradition: Who in the political branches in the UK has the power to overrule the court in regard to Assange.
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.
Apart from the normal reasons you don't hire thieves to guard your stuff[1], he is too mentally unstable to be trusted with anything. Remember, it was his mental instability that probably saved him from extradition.
[1] Yeah, it makes for great Hollywood stuff, but that's Hollywood.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
...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?
>>> "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.
>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...
I am surprised this went on for so long.
EDIT: My bad. UK, not England!