×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'UK Hackers' Condemn McKinnon?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the got-what-he-deserved dept.

United Kingdom 214

An anonymous reader writes "Whitedust has some interesting commentary on this BBC article which claims that 'UK hackers' have condemned Gary Mckinnon's trial. From the article: 'Another example of some truly awful and misinformed mainstream tech reporting here. The article claims that UK hackers are almost all in support of Mr Mckinnon when in truth as we all know the entire tech community has agreed that Mr Mckinnon is not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

214 comments

Much Ado About Nothing (5, Insightful)

TripMaster Monkey (862126) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293373)


Agreed, Gary is an idiot. His moonbat UFO-tech stories notwithstanding, anyone who breaks into systems by exploiting blank administrator passwords really isn't much of a 'hacker', and anyone who says they managed to get a UFO picture, but didn't save a screen dump is either a moron or a liar.

All that said, 70 years? Incarcerating Gary for what amounts to a life sentence for his harmless sightseeing is more than too harsh...it makes him a martyr to hackerdom...a martyr that actual hackers would much rather not be associated with.

Instead, how about some action against the clueless sysadmins who left vital Army, Navy, Air Force, and DoD systems vulnerable to such a sophomoric and elementary 'attack' by not passwording administrator-level accounts? If I ever failed to protect my network against such an intrusion, I'd be cleaning out my desk at the end of the day.

Mark deserves to be punished, but extradition to the U.S., 70 years in prison, and millions of dollars in fines is just plain overboard. The U.S. would much better serve its interests by studiously ignoring Gary and letting the UK authorities deal with him.

Of course, if the U.S. is just looking for another 'terrorist' to keep the public's fear level at fever pitch, I suppose the uber-hacker Gary McKinnon will do nicely.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing (1)

cdogbert (964753) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293477)

...but extradition to the U.S., 70 years in prison, and millions of dollars in fines is just plain overboard. This is just supposed to "make an example". 70 years in prison makes a great headline to go with this cracked-out story. "If we get caught, we're not going to white-collar resort prison. No, no, no. We're going to federal POUND ME IN THE ASS prison."

Re:Much Ado About Nothing (1)

AceCaseOR (594637) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293553)

That 70 years figure seems, at least to me, to be a little higher then what he'd actually get, I think. Quoting such a figure might just be to get him to cop a plea, for a lower sentence, thus saving the expense of a trial, and freeing up the dock for more important cases.

However, considering his previous behavior, he'll probably plead not-guilty, and insist on defending himself, rather then hiring an attorney, or using a court assigned one.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293580)

Here you go again with your karma-whoring frist-psoting, complete with your inane U.S. administration bashing (just because you can). Guess you felt that you needed that extra "Insightful", so why not throw an anti-administration line in there for the fan boys to mod up!

Seriously, you need to submit yourself to Dr. Phil or someone who can help you with your narcisstic needs to get the beloved first-post.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293627)

Seriously, you need to submit yourself to Dr. Phil or someone who can help you with your narcisstic needs to get the beloved first-post.

And you keep chasing him around like a faithful puppy. Who needs help?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293663)

"Gary is an idiot."

Well said! Spoken with assurance by one who has proven himself to be an expert, with many years of experience, to boot.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing (4, Insightful)

Unski (821437) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293667)

Mark deserves to be punished, but extradition to the U.S., 70 years in prison, and millions of dollars in fines is just plain overboard. The U.S. would much better serve its interests by studiously ignoring Gary and letting the UK authorities deal with him.
Why do you stop there? This what is fishy to me - that he is looking at a horrendously disproportionate sentence in relation to his crimes. It only remains to be effectively discussed as to why he is looking at such a stupid sentence.

It's so easy to rattle off some dismissive diatribe on /., saying he is a nutjob etc., but why the hell are they looking at giving him such a fisting? And as for his credibility amongst the UK hacker community, who the hell are Whitedust to be able to speak for them? There has been so much momentum in the direction of explaining away his allegations, and so little critical analysis of what he says. Most of the analyses I have read basically start from the point of view that he is mad and deluded, no-one is supposing 'what if he is right..?'. There were easily about 20 naysayers who jumped on his explanation for not being able to grab a screenshot - a narrowly technical aspect to his allegations - but I believe him as I believe he would not have had time to grab one. I also believe he has got out of his depth, and has seen too much. I say it again: 70 years? Something is not right.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing (2, Insightful)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293962)

It all depends on how you add things up. Is 5 years too much of a sentence for breaking into gov/mil computer systems? Then if he's being tried for 14 separate violations, that could add up to 70 years if convicted on all counts. Even then, the judge could sentence him to the maximum 5 years for all convictions, but say all terms to be served concurrently (meaning only 5 years max). OTOH, nobody seems to note what the minimum sentence could be. Is it possible he could be found guilty and serve no prison time at all?

Just to be clear, the "5 years" was just pulled out of a hat. I don't know specifically what crimes he's being accused of, how many, or what the sentencing range is for any of them.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing (2, Insightful)

Unski (821437) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294302)

Yeah I would not disagree with what you suggest there - that it could be served serially or concurrently and that the minimum is not being reported. I thank you for that much, but the main thrust of my post is that (should they choose to make him serve it) seventy years is still a suspiciously disproportional sentence and only adds fuel to the fire. It bugs me, it makes me believe him more than a casually dismissive sentence would. What did he see? Why do they want to gag him so bad? Very few, if any, hackers have been convicted and given custodial sentences, there are several unusual things about this case;

1. He managed to hack into US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Defense for a period of around two years. Equals much embarrassment on the part of those respective organisations, surely?
2. The US has a real hard-on for extradition. Britain has had to work hard in persuading them to let Britain prosecute him instead. There is a real appetite for punishing him amongst the US authorities, but I doubt there are many citizens in the US that care.
3. He talks of suppressed technology - UFO technology, anti-gravity technology and so-called 'Free Energy' technology. I wager that most people would not go around saying such things unless they were convinced they had seen such things. He must surely have been aware his claims would be met with outright derision, that people would not simply believe him and demand more information from government.
4. A classic tactic in a psychological war campaign is that of Decoy, Distract and Trash: Set up some person or group, take them off the trail of something real and important, and trash the person or the subject. McKinnon is totally vulnerable to tactics such as these at the moment - his allegations can be individually explained away by the authorities to the media (decoy), the public can be incited into wanting him punished via the media (distract) and he personally can have his PC and human rights impounded (trash).

Re:Much Ado About Nothing (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293836)

>harmless sightseeing

Not harmless, given the cost of ensuring that a compromised system is free of root kits, logic bombs, sniffers, key loggers, defacements, deletions, and subtle but interesting edits to documents(*). Add the cost of handling it to preserve evidence plus analyzing and tracing the attack. If these had been commercial instead of government systems you'd also need to add the cost of downtime.

(*) Yes, yes, of course I know. But if the system's been infected long enough then the backups are infected too.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing (1)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293947)

Not harmless, given the cost of ensuring that a compromised system is free of root kits, logic bombs, sniffers, key loggers, defacements, deletions, and subtle but interesting edits to documents(*). Add the cost of handling it to preserve evidence plus analyzing and tracing the attack. If these had been commercial instead of government systems you'd also need to add the cost of downtime.

It is indeed a lot more expensive then setting a real password for the administrator accounts, yeah..

What Garry did was inexcusable, but if you want to draw a conclusion, it should be that leaving your system wide open can turn out to be very expensive.

Re:Much Ado About Nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293889)

The argument that you put forward, that it is somehow the admins fault, is perposterous. They should get punished internally, true, but it isn't their fault they got hacked. It is their fault that they didn't do enough to stop it, but that doesn't diminish the culpability of anyone that did hack the box.

I should be able to live without fear of being hacked. I should be able to live without fear of my house being broken into. If I don't lock down every port, and someone walks in, it isn't my fault.

A lot of people use this logic, and it is starting to piss me off. "It's not my fault I did x. They should have done more to stop me from doing x. It is their fault..."

(And after rereading your post while previewing mine, your only fault was "instead" which I focused on, and wasn't your real intent, but my dander was already up, and is a valid peeve to voice here)

Re:Much Ado About Nothing (1)

JPriest (547211) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294204)

If the admin password was not even set and all he did was pull down some files, are his actions even really defined as hacking? If someone connects ftp.some.gov which permits anonymous access and pulls some files from there is that also hacking?

If using IE vuls to install spyware on windows machines is not even against the law, how can his actions be worth 70 years?

Re:Much Ado About Nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15294334)

anyone who says they managed to get a UFO picture, but didn't save a screen dump is either a moron or a liar.
So you never make big mistakes like that?

Check out Whitedust -- conflict of interest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15294341)

The anonymous Slashdot description suggests that Whitedust has some "interesting commentary" about the McKinnon case. Well it doesn't, in fact it's completely devoid of any substance at all, and merely gives a contrary opinion which it doesn't even bother to justify.

This makes me think that Whitedust is merely profile whoring, the so-called "Whitedust Security" trying to show that it's against "all those nasty hacker types".

Well actually, Whitedust, you're just making yourselves look stupid. A professional security team would be more interested in the weakness of the security measures that were in place, and not in crucifying an amateur who merely exposed those weaknesses.

No Free Energy For You! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293374)

...as we all know the entire tech community has agreed that Mr Mckinnon is not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker.
Oh, Gary's gonna be pissed when he sees that. No free energy [wikipedia.org] for you!

What?! (5, Insightful)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293386)

Whoa there. They aren't condemning him. They are condemning the trial. Last time I checked, those were entirely different things. He got lazy towards the end, but how lazy was the US Military to not notice it for two years?

That really makes you think about how long someone who really has hostile intents could stay undetected.

Re:What?! (2, Interesting)

The_REAL_DZA (731082) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293465)

That really makes you think about how long someone who really has hostile intents could stay undetected.


Answer: Pretty much as long as they wanted to.
 
Remember all those Mission: Impossible episodes (the "good" T.V. ones, not the "so-so" Cruise-missiles they've been releasing the last few years...)? You remember how at the end their "target" always had that "wtf just happened?!?!" look on his face? Same story, different era (and the tape may or may not self-destruct in five seconds...)

Jurisdiction troubles again. (3, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293388)

The article claims that UK hackers are almost all in support of Mr Mckinnon when in truth as we all know the entire tech community has agreed that Mr Mckinnon is not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker.

Perhaps whitedust should consider that the hacking community can think Mr Mckinnon is "not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker," but at the same time also support Mr Mckinnon as he is being extradited to the US for committing a crime in Britain.

Would US hackers support the extradition of another hacker being extradited to France for hacking a french military network? I suspect not - no matter how stupid & obnoxious the hacker's behaviour was.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (4, Insightful)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293453)

Um actually extradition exists for a reason. And he didnt commit his crime in britian, he commited it in Britian AND the United States. That is the downfall of technology. All this talk of no borders and you can't limit it etc, well guess what, it works both ways.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (2, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293570)

Um actually extradition exists for a reason.

Yes, so that criminal who commit a crime in a country, then flee to another country can be returned to the country they committed the crime in.

And he didnt commit his crime in britian, he commited it in Britian AND the United States.

No he was in Britain when the crime was committed. The crime occurred in both countries. Perhaps I did not sufficiently distinguish between the subject & object of my original sentence.

That is the downfall of technology. All this talk of no borders and you can't limit it etc, well guess what, it works both ways.

No, it only works one way - when you commit an offense outside of the US, your government will face pressure to extradite you to the US. It will not flow the other way.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (2, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293963)

No he was in Britain when the crime was committed. The crime occurred in both countries.

Negative. Jurisdictions do not overlap. If the same crime was comitted in two jurisdictions, then you open the way for double jeopardy extraordinare.

McKinnon was in the UK as he knowingly broke US law, just as say, USians are in say, the US, as they knowingly break Saudi law when they critisise the House of Saud.

Here's the bottom line in this paticular case. US considers itself the priemiere country in the world. US law is considered by US courts to apply everywhere, and anyone infriging on US laws or the rights of US entities, evern if the infrigement is outside the US, is condiered accountable. Essentially, every non US citizen is still deemed to be de factor under US law by the United States, and such vassals are subject to summons, inspection and approval by their masters in washington.

Think that's a bit far fetched? Go ask Manuel Noriega and the Panamanian government about the extra long arm of US law.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293578)

The person accused of a crime was at all times relevant to the accusation located inside Britain. The person accused of a crime was not under the jurisdiction of any other country.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (1)

johansalk (818687) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294337)

"All this talk of no borders and you can't limit it etc, well guess what, it works both ways." That's bullshit. Americans don't extradite their citizens to the UK. There are countless numbers of IRA people in the US that the UK would want. It just so happens that we in the UK have weak and perhaps corrupt politicians that allow the one-way intimidation of the US administration to fall on individual British citizens. What a big shame. It annoys the heck out of me that some UK politicians it seems care more about their US reputation and future earnings from books and speeches over there than they care about their citizens.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (3, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293505)

"Mr Mckinnon as he is being extradited to the US for committing a crime in Britain"
He broke into a computer in the US. So what the crime committed in the US or Britain? Having "Hackers" come to your defence is a little like the mob coming to your defence. I really hate that use of the term Hacker. I still think of Hackers as being good programmers and not script kiddies.
That being said I see no real reason for him to serve 70+years. I do think that he should go on trial here in the US but he should get a suspended sentence and possibly some medical help. I really doubt they will throw the book at this poor soul.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293529)

Just like it would be a crime for me in a country that forbids websites to publish one over here in the UK?

International law..

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (1)

Ricwot (632038) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293726)

...exists in no real coherent form, and is basically epressed by the exercising of power by larger countries against smaller countries.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (2, Interesting)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294103)

It really isn't very clear is it. Especially when the crime actually extends across the border. If I throw a rock across the US/Canadian border to hit a Canadian, where should I be prosecuted? Its a crime in both countries. Same it true if I'm sitting at a computer in the US and hack into a Canadian govermnent computer.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (2, Insightful)

kentmartin (244833) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293743)

So, by this logic, I pop a website up in the UK that is critical of the Elosian administration. It is illegal to criticise the Elosian administration in Elosia, so, they can request my extradition?

Better still, I publish my non DMCA compliant workarounds on my website in Elosia (which also has DMCA madness), US citizens can access it, does that mean that the US can extradite me when the Elosian court system has had it's fill with me?

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294212)

"So, by this logic, I pop a website up in the UK that is critical of the Elosian administration. It is illegal to criticise the Elosian administration in Elosia, so, they can request my extradition?"
Not quite the same thing.
How about this. You stand in Northern Ireland and you shoot and kill someone in Ireland?
You action was made in the UK but the crime happened in Ireland.
Or you embezzle 80 million euros from a bank in France from you system in the UK?

His actions where a crime in both countries, the countries are friendly to each other, and the crime crossed boarders.

What many people in the EU don't understand is this poor guy will be tried by a jury of ordinary US citizens. He isn't going to get 70 years. He is probably going to get a suspended sentence and probation.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293712)

extradited to the US for committing a crime in Britain.
International law is funny that way. The U.S. does not have a reciprocal agreement to extradite people to the UK.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/60523-print.sh tml [theherald.co.uk]

Apparently the Scots don't like the terms of the 'new' treaty. Kudos to them.
Here's the meat of the article
Britain's controversial extradition treaty with the US faces a challenge from Holyrood over whether it can be applied in Scottish courts.

MSPs are understood to have agreed in private to lobby Whitehall over the deal with Washington under which British people can be incarcerated while awaiting trial in America, despite no evidence being presented against them.

[2 paragraphs]

The treaty was agreed by Britain three years ago to avoid long delays in bringing terrorism suspects to trial. All that is required to remove a suspect from Britain is a warrant from a US court, without any evidence being required. However Congress has stalled its reciprocal part of the treaty because legislators there fear it does not give adequate protection to US citizens extradited to the UK.

Liberty, the [UK human rights &] civil liberties campaigning group, complains that the law is being used for non-terrorist charges, that those involved face jail on remand because they have no residence when they arrive in the US, and that the preparation of cases can take months

Emphasis mine.
What were the Brits thinking to agree to such a treaty? Their Gov't failed in its fundamental duty to protect its citizens & provide due process.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (1)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294023)

Would US hackers support the extradition of another hacker being extradited to France for hacking a french military network? I suspect not - no matter how stupid & obnoxious the hacker's behaviour was.

I don't know that I qualify for any given definition of "hacker", but I would have no issues with extradition in that case.

Re:Jurisdiction troubles again. (1)

VinB (936538) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294118)

Would US hackers support the extradition of another hacker being extradited to France for hacking a french military network?

Bad example. French?, military? in the same sentence? I disagree with the entire premise.

Well (3, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293398)

if anyone's going to know about talent attention seekers, its Whitedust Security, the people who published the array of conjecture, guesswork, faux outrage and outright wrongitude that was : "Walmarts Wikipedia War"

Re:Well (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293670)

Amen. Whitedust seems to think that public opinion == "The Truth" and refuses to do any actual investigation into the matter. I've lost any and all respect I had for their shameful attempts at journalism.

Mod parent up.

Larry David type (2)

suso (153703) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293443)

Maybe this guy is like Larry David, you know, always ending up in weird situations, like being able to get into NASA's servers but not able to save anything. There is the possibility that he made up the story about how his screenviewer works and can't save pictures to save face. Or to prevent him from really getting nabbed by the authorities. I would think that if the U.S. government really suspected that he saw something as important as evidence that aliens exist, that we wouldn't even know this guy existed.

This guy gets the same kind of attention when someone names their baby Google.

Re:Larry David type (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294483)

I would think that if the U.S. government really suspected that he saw something as important as evidence that aliens exist, that we wouldn't even know this guy existed.

There are no 'leaks,' there are strategic conspiracy covers that reveal parts of the truth enough that the public discounts it as conspiracy theory fluff. Think about it. Bvarian Illuminnati trying to take over the world? Laughable. Aliens in flying saucers? A joke. You really saw something? We've heard it before.

Keeping a secret that can't be independently verified is not important. The details of TEMPEST shielding are classified because if someone leaked that crystalized iron-zinc-copper-gold alloy caused a matrix refraction that produced a farriday cage that when exposed to EMR created an EMR field around it that self-contains the radiation, you could build one and go, "Well shit it works!" If someone says they saw aliens masturbating in Area 51, you can't make that from scratch.

It's the scientific process in reverse.

Rebuttal to whining (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293446)

McKinnon himself has admitted his "hacks" are low tech and utilitarian - a 2-line PERL script. Considering the lack of technical prowess of his intrusion methods, why should hackers take the side of the government on this one? Hackers are in favour of freedom of information over technological ability. I think the hacker community will remain in support of McKinnon because of his (claimed) motivation - curiosity and publicising of government secrets. In this respect I don't think this case is much different from Mitnick's.

Aside, doesn't /. have better news sources than some grammatically incorrect, 1 paragraph blog entry? What is this, Digg?

Re:Rebuttal to whining (1)

Gotung (571984) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293475)

Do you have any idea just how much you can do with 2 lines of PERL?

Re:Rebuttal to whining (1)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293640)

How much *I* can do? Sure! I can print "Hello World" to the screen!

Howeever, McKinnon said in the BBC article that he just used a simple script to test blank and common passwords on a series of IPs and host names. Even I could do that, and since it succeeded that's not saying much about US military and government security practices.

Re:Rebuttal to whining (1)

Cederic (9623) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293524)


To you it's a 2 line PERL script. To a true monk it's a multi-system automated intrusion system capable of deploying rootkits and coordinating attacks through an IRC bot network.

Don't underestimate the power of PERL.

Back on topic, another poster summed it up well:
- he's an idiot
- he should be tried in a UK court

70 years in prison in a country he never visited to perform his alleged crime? That's not proportionate.

Re:Rebuttal to whining (3, Insightful)

AceCaseOR (594637) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293583)

I've thought about this some, and actually, perhaps it's a better idea to bring him to the US for trial, even if he doesn't get a 70 year sentence, because it establishes a precident, which could possibly be extended to, say, Russian Spam Kings, Nigerian E-Mail scammers, or any other person or group which is engaging in more serious computer crime against the US and lives in a country we have an extradition treaty with (or could get with) and has weak computer crime laws.

Re:Rebuttal to whining (1)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293890)

or the RIAA could lobby for the extradition of people responsible for thepiratebay, China could lobby for the extradition of international citizens helping Chinese citizens break censorship laws China has put in place, etc. etc.

----

Of course, this extradition is only happening because Great Britain and the United States both regard hacking into a military computer system to be a crime, but if it's not a crime in Russia, Nigeria, or even Great Britain, it's unlikely anyone's going to be extradited to the US.

Re:Rebuttal to whining (1)

Cederic (9623) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293977)


But say I create a website in the UK, looking at the hypothetical question of "How would you assassinate the President of the United States".

Good fun party question, very interesting topic to investigate and ponder, and highly illegal in the US.

Your view is that I should be extraditable to the US for that. My view is that you can go fuck yourself (and ideally your president too).

Like Dmitry Sklyarov? (3, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294148)

So that people the world over are subject to US law? So that people excercising their civil rights in their home countries can be dragged off to the US, be given a fair trial and hanged, because they offended the moral sensiblities of the mighty nation of manifest-destians? Like Dmitry Sklyarov, who was held accountable for simply excercising his rights in his own home country?

I for one would rather not be dragged off to the US to be judged and condenmed for excercising my rights in my home nation. Over here, people can drink after they're 18. Should they be dragged off for infringements of the oh so higher and purer US statutes on alcohol consumption?

You might consider that trollish, but it just amazes me how arrogant some americans can be in their attitudes towards other countries and their judicial systems, paticularly in these days of Camp Delta, Guantanamo Bay. Your country is not exactly a shining example of enlighted jurisprudence.

Re:Rebuttal to whining (1)

iogan (943605) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294230)

I've thought about this some, and actually, perhaps it's a better idea to bring him to the US for trial,

You know what scares me? That you talk about this as if it's your god given right to bring him where ever you want, regardless of the fact that he is a foreign citizen. It seems the views of the current US administration is filtering down through the general population. Well here's a clue: YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO "BRING" CITIZENS FROM SOVEREIGN COUNTRIES ANYWHERE!

Ok? Can we all agree on that please?

Re:Rebuttal to whining (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15294196)

No Digg has better commentary than
slash.

Idiot (5, Informative)

gowen (141411) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293450)

The article claims that UK hackers are almost all in support of Mr Mckinnon
No it doesn't. It says that some of them who knew him personally are in support of him. It quotes them, too.

The only stupid generalisations are in Whitedust's articles.

Re:Idiot (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293616)

Actually... the bbc article DID say that earlier this morning. They seem to have changed their mind since that Whitedust posting has done the rounds in some of the underground sites (addict3d.org et all). You gotta remember people; THIS IS THE WEB MEDIA IS CHANGABLE!

And you thought hackers already had a bad name? (2, Insightful)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293451)

From the original Whitedust article on McKinnon [whitedust.net]: Free Gary? Please God Don't.

It would seem Gary "Uber Hacker" McKinnon is not so "Uber" after all. After reading his interview on Spy.org.uk it has come to our attention that his technical knowledge and indeed, mental state, is not all that it should be.

I seem to remember that he was afraid they were going to ship him to Guantanamo Bay [slashdot.org]. But perhaps he'd be better off in a Starfleet detention cell, or maybe aboard the Death Star. The guy is a certifiable kook; the only thing he has to fear is a fair trial where he gets on the stand, rants about the hidden UFO technology (which is doing a wonderful job for us in Iraq among other places) we possess, and the jury figures out that he is a kook and send him away.

Much as I tend to think of hackers as low-lifes for the most part, those that use their abilities indescriminately anyway, I don't think even they should be subjected to this guy's company.

More info (2, Informative)

exosyst (887386) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293454)

The BBC also have a nice profile on Gary at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4715612.stm [bbc.co.uk] It appears he was using some kind of Remote desktop system for the remote control and for the most part he seems to have just pinged and attempted access using a perl script! Not exactly the "ultimate hacker" that the US and the media seem to be inferring.

Re:More info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293764)

As many people brought up, why aren't the idiots who set up these systems being court-marshaled? The attacks he described couldn't even be used against my laptop (OK, so I never installed remote access components -- but these attacks would also fail against my desktop, which does have such components) -- why are they so effective against the DoD?

Re:More info (1)

exosyst (887386) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294008)

I'm shocked that there was no firewall in place what so ever. McKinnon goes on to say that there was a large number of these "hackers" logged onto the network doing equally questionable research into the DoD computer network.

Can't believe he didn't get a snapshot of all those aliens tho :D

Harsh punishment for what exactly? (2, Insightful)

digitaldc (879047) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293457)

The punishment he faces, up to 70 years in jail, was also too harsh a sentence for the crimes he has confessed to.

Kevin Mitnick did similar things and they went after him too. From Kevin's [wikipedia.org] Wiki entry: "Littman made allegations of journalistic impropriety against Markoff, of overzealous prosecution of Mitnick by the government, of mainstream media over-hyping of Mitnick's actual crimes, and of the legality of Shimomura's involvement in the matter."

So what did McKinnon actually do? Is his harsh sentence for changing/using/leaking/stealing information or just because he embarrassed the Government in the 'post-911' world?

Re:Harsh punishment for what exactly? (1, Informative)

timon (46050) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293625)

Is his harsh sentence for changing/using/leaking/stealing information or just because he embarrassed the Government in the 'post-911' world?

*ding ding ding* We have a winner!

Leaking information is seen to be a valuable tool to "counter critics" (if not a critical job function and patriotic act) unless said leak exposes embarrassing details about illegal/unethical programs, incompetence or other unsavory details. Then it's full steam ahead for the prosecution of the leakers and not the target of the leak, unless the embarrassment is at the Katrina level, of course.

Re:Harsh punishment for what exactly? (1)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294195)

So what did McKinnon actually do?

Depends on who you ask.

Either he harmlessly hacked into a bunch of gov/mil computer systems, doing them a favor by ponting out how weak their security is.

-or-

He hacked into gov/mil computer systems resulting in the shut down of some systems and $millions lost in the ensuing panic and investigations.

Take your pick.

Re:Harsh punishment for what exactly? (1)

Unski (821437) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294399)

Exactly the question I seek answers to. His harsh sentence could be for embarrassing the US administration the 'post-911' world - at least that is a good place to start. The whole things bugs me though, it makes me believe him more than a casually dismissive sentence would. What did he see? Why do they want to gag him so bad? Very few, if any, hackers have been convicted and given custodial sentences, there are several unusual things about this case;

1. He managed to hack into US Army, Navy, Air Force, and Department of Defense for a period of around two years. Equals much embarrassment on the part of those respective organisations, surely?
2. The US has a real hard-on for extradition. Britain has had to work hard in persuading them to let Britain prosecute him instead. There is a real appetite for punishing him amongst the US authorities, but I doubt there are many citizens in the US that care.
3. He talks of suppressed technology - UFO technology, anti-gravity technology and so-called 'Free Energy' technology. I wager that most people would not go around saying such things unless they were convinced they had seen such things. He must surely have been aware his claims would be met with outright derision, that people would not simply believe him and demand more information from government.
4. A classic tactic in a psychological war campaign is that of Decoy, Distract and Trash: Set up some person or group, take them off the trail of something real and important, and trash the person or the subject. McKinnon is totally vulnerable to tactics such as these at the moment - his allegations can be individually explained away by the authorities to the media (decoy), the public can be incited into wanting him punished via the media (distract) and he personally can have his PC and human rights impounded (trash). Therefore a counterbalance to this possibility is just for some people, who ordinarily wouldn't, to actually suppose, in the realms of hypothesis, 'what if McKinnon was right?'.

The whole tide on /. is against him, but dammit I want some of the open-minded /.'ers to speak up and talk about what he is saying he saw.

In related news: Humans committed murders. (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293483)

SOME humans, of course.

What we must remember, is that when an article says "People from this or that group", they don't mean ALL the group.

The BBC article doesn't say "ALL UK Hackers support McKinnon". They just say "UK Hackers", as in "SOME UK Hackers".

I read that BBC article, and I agree with them on everything. McKinnon isn't judged because he's a moron, he's judged because he exposed that the most powerful nation in the world has the weakest information security in the world - and the US wants to punish him for that.

Re:In related news: Humans committed murders. (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293556)

If they mean "some UK hackers," they should write "some UK hackers."

I doubt if it had been "UK cabdrivers," "UK insurance adjusters," "UK left-handed people," or "UK women named Susan" referenced it would be immune from such criticism by people who fit the description yet feel differently than portrayed.

Re:In related news: Humans committed murders. (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294123)

What we must remember, is that when an article says "People from this or that group", they don't mean ALL the group...

...he exposed that the most powerful nation in the world has the weakest information security in the world


So, let me get this straight. You lecture people about making sweeping generalizations, and then make a completely baseless, ridiculous statement about how X is the most Y in the world. Do you really think that, say, Uganda or Croatia has a better overall level of IT expertise and security across its entire spectrum of government activities? Are you even listening to yourself?

Re:In related news: Humans committed murders. (1)

IngramJames (205147) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294347)

The BBC article doesn't say "ALL UK Hackers support McKinnon". They just say "UK Hackers", as in "SOME UK Hackers".

Actually, the article says:
"The UK's hacking community has strongly criticised.."

But which hacking community is this? Ahhh..
"...hackers, gathered at the regular London meetings of the UK's hacking community.."

I would imagine that's the monthly 2600 meet in the Trocodero off Picaddilly Circus.

And which hackers (plural) were they?

According to the article, they are "Mark", "Rat" and "Dr K".

So out of the many people gathered at a 2600 (I assume) meeting, three people are representitive of the "Biritsh Hacking Community", eh?

Sorry, but I think that's appallingly misrepresentitive journalism. I too agree with some of the points that those guys, but saying that some blokes picked at random at a meeting are the UK Hacking Community is ridiculous, frankly.

And only three people? Was it a very small meeting, or were other people asked about this issue too? What did they say? If they'd agreed, then why didn't the article say "the others at the meeting were almost all in agreement"? Could it be that Mark, Rat and Mr K represented a minority viewpoint which has been quoted and extended to "The Hacker Community" by an irresponsible journalist?

I guess we'll never know. Unless we go to the next 2600 meet in London.. :)

The journalist, in shourt (and if (s)he cared about accuracy) should have written: "Three UK hackers from London we randomly selected.."

Moving on..

Where I disagree.. "he's been treated appallingly." Sorry, but he broke the law in two countries. He's admitted doing it. The USA want to extradite him? Good luck to them. If a cracker in (say) Russia broke into the MoD computers, I reckon the British Government would want some words with him too, even if the Russians had already initiated their own legal process.

Most crimes are comitted in one country; being able to commit a crime in more than one country at the same time is something quite new, and the law hasn't caught up yet. I don't see any reason why a crime committed in two countries at the same time shouldn't be treated as a crime in both those countries; or crimminals will simply move to countries where the punishment is less harsh, safe in the knowledge that they'll get off easy if they get caught, and then be exempt from extradition.

An analogy - if I take AK-47s from the USA and bring them in a boat to the UK, I would be guilty of exporting arms in the US and of importing arms in the UK. I fail to see why using computer equipment in the UK to crack a system should be treated as the same crime as accessing unauthorised information in that other country.

As to the actual cracking itself - two laws in two countries. The crime was committed in both. He knowingly broke two laws in two countries at the same time. Why should he NOT stand trial on both counts in both places? If you can't do the times, don't do the crimes... so to speak :)

he's judged because he exposed that the most powerful nation in the world has the weakest information security in the world - and the US wants to punish him for that.

IMHO, the USA is entirely within its rights to punish him; and it has nothing to do with scapegoating or showing off or revenge. The guy broke into systems and accessed classified information. That's a crime. The US authorities have no choice but to prepare a case and try to bring it to trial - if they are doing their job correctly. Nothing to do with being angry about having their lax security exposed. When somebody breaks the law quite deliberately, prosecutors don't say "oops, that was embarrassing. Let's just forget about it and take it as a well learned lesson that we should increase our security, and buy linux!"

Rather, they say "The law has been broken; our job is to prosecute lawbreakers. There's a connection here, I'm sure.. hey, Jerry - what do we do when we discover a law-breaker again?"

Or something like that.

Just my twopennth. And at that many words, that's a bargain price!

WTF...LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293502)

OMG HAX


 

Re:WTF...LOL (1)

cheese-cube (910830) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293562)

Oh no, it's Gary Mckinnon! He's come to hack Slashdot! We are all doomed...no wait; it's just another moron. In my defence it's fairly easy to mistake the two.

Re:WTF...LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293658)

XxSlavetoAnguishxX: omg my gf just left me
cheese-cube (910830): that sux man
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: i blame myself only i'm such an ass *cries*
cheese-cube (910830): dude come over to my house and we can cut ourselves together
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: okay *cries*
cheese-cube (910830): omg dashboard confessional has a new cd, i preordered it already
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: dude they're my favorite band to self-mutilate to
cheese-cube (910830): i prefer to cut myself while watching Napoleon Dynamite on my bigscreen
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: dude that movie is so deep. i cry every time i see it
cheese-cube (910830): me too. i hate myself
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: yeah we're such tortured souls, nobody understands how hard life is for us
cheese-cube (910830): yeah we got it tough dude. pass the tissues

Confusing (0)

qvek (722913) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293543)

From the summary I'm not sure whether UK hackers are condemning him or condemning those who seek to punish him. Maybe both? Can't be bothered to read the article.

Harmless Nutter != Terrorist (2, Interesting)

Attaturk (695988) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293567)

"...when in truth as we all know the entire tech community has agreed that Mr Mckinnon is not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker".

I'm sorry but you can sod right off.

I'm both a member of the "tech community" and a "UK hacker" and I certainly do not consider him either an idiot or an attention seeker.
Clearly the guy has some pretty outlandish views. But apart from that his only crime was proving how incredibly poor federal computer security is in the US even long after their biggest ever attack on home soil.

The only real crime worth talking about here is the lack of security. If I was walking down a street in London and saw a door marked "Ministry of Defence. Top Secret. UFO archive." I'd probably keep on walking - unless the door was wide open. Then I might just peek inside out of curiosity. Now if it turned out to be the real deal how the hell could anyone with a brain and a conscience prosecute me for that?

Mr McKinnon is not entirely innocent but he is quite right to be concerned about being extradited to a country that seems to feel that it can suspend the rule of law in order to best fit the fear-mongering 'everyone that's not with us is against us', "we'll get the terr'rists" mentality.

Perhaps if the US didn't have such a ghastly recent history this wouldn't be a problem. But the fact is that noone outside the US is ignorant of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, the foreign torture flights - you name it. And the type of people currently running the Pentagon, NSA, CIA and indeed Whitehouse are hardly grounds for giving the US justice system the benefit of any doubt whatsoever.
We know these people have little or no regard for equal human rights. We know these people will happily bend, ignore or entirely circumvent their own laws to suit their own needs.
We know that innocents have been mistreated, tortured or killed during this administration's watch.
We also know that Gary McKinnon is pretty harmless, and unsurprisingly didn't actually manage to do any harm to the world's biggest military and technical power.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that if us Brits could still trust americans to practise what they preach then we wouldn't have a problem sending him over for his wrist-slapping. But sadly we can't. And we don't want to see another British subject subjected to media-friendly kangaroo courts that do little more than to quench the american right's thirst for heads to roll - whether they're the right heads or not.

"I didn't mean to" != "Valid excuse" (1)

cheese-cube (910830) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293641)

We also know that Gary McKinnon is pretty harmless, and unsurprisingly didn't actually manage to do any harm to the world's biggest military and technical power.Just because he didn't mean any harm doesn't change what he allegedly did. What if someone shoots someone else and then swears that they didn't mean to do any harm? Should they be let off? Here's a hint: no. You do the crime then you should damn well do the time.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist (4, Insightful)

Mark Hood (1630) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293645)

If I was walking down a street in London and saw a door marked "Ministry of Defence. Top Secret. UFO archive." I'd probably keep on walking - unless the door was wide open.

Actually a better analogy would be trying the closed door and discovering it was unlocked - then walking inside instead of raising the alarm.

It's still trespassing, and still a crime. How easy they make it for you doesn't really matter for the purposes of the trial.

I'm sure you'd ask the court to release someone who wandered into your house, read your personal information but didn't take any of it, right?

Mark

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist (1)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293833)

I'm sure you'd ask the court to release someone who wandered into your house, read your personal information but didn't take any of it, right?

Perhaps not, but I wouldn't expect to be able to extradite him from overseas, and I wouldn't expect him to face many years in prison.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist (1)

IngramJames (205147) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294402)

I'm sure you'd ask the court to release someone who wandered into your house, read your personal information but didn't take any of it, right?

Perhaps not, but I wouldn't expect to be able to extradite him from overseas, and I wouldn't expect him to face many years in prison.

Not even if the normal punishment for that crime in your country was many years in prison, which was considered reasonable? And if he'd accessed your house not in person but by using a futuristic remote-controlled droid? And if the information he accessed was so important to you that you kept it locked in a safe within a safe (albeit with faulty locks)? And if he repeatedly came back to see if you'd got any new information? And if he was planning to use that information against you?

That's the problem with analogy. We go from National Security Classificaliion Level YouReadYouDie7652Times to living room rug-wine-spillage incidents and it no longer makes any sense.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15294044)

I'm sure you'd ask the court to release someone who wandered into your house, read your personal information but didn't take any of it, right?

Not a day goes by when someone doesn't wonder in while I'm doctoring UFO photos or working on testing the latest ubber engery system. It's a major issue... you would think I would learn to lock my door given i'm part of a major conspiricy.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist (2, Interesting)

Attaturk (695988) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294479)

OK so that metaphor wasn't water-tight. However note that I absolutely did not say that he did not commit a crime. He found vulnerabilities and a lack of passwords protecting remote administration services (that should never have been left running) on the space agency and air force computers belonging to a foreign power.

He failed to report them, and he continued to access them.
Fair enough. He's nicked. It's a fair cop etc.

I have no problem with him being fairly prosecuted. If you read my post again you'll see that my problem is rather that we simply can't trust the United States to fairly prosecute him any more. His charges are likely to be inflated, dramatised and exaggerated - in fact if you listen to the hype we know this to be the case already. Quoting one of his prosecutors: "the biggest military computer hack of all time"
Riiiiight. Just like Richard Reid was an elite Al Qaeda special agent, Moussaoui was a criminal mastermind and Saddam Hussein had deadly global threat anthrax super-powers.

It's very difficult for us Brits to trust people that say stuff like this, even when they're supposed to be representing your biggest ally.

If the real threats are regarded as uncatchable, untreatable or inexplicable - i.e. Osama, Kim Jong Il, Sudanese government etc. - and the hangers on and wannabe anti-Americans are treated as serious threats, absolutely nothing is being done to improve US security.

I'd just like the US authorities to stop vilifying relatively harmless nutters and to instead focus on the real serious threats, which I accept may be a little more complicated and a little harder to media manage.

Until then it's probably safest for trans-Atlantic relations if British subjects are tried in British courts whether or not the U.S. considers them terr'rists.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist (1)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293703)

Come off it, he continued to access the poorly secured systems for two years without alerting anyone. He accessed military computers, looking for secret files until he got caught, with no apparent intention of reporting anything. What did he expect - a pat on the back and a box of chocolates?

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist (1)

MoneyT (548795) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293721)

I was walking down a street in London and saw a door marked "Ministry of Defence. Top Secret. UFO archive." I'd probably keep on walking - unless the door was wide open. Then I might just peek inside out of curiosity. Now if it turned out to be the real deal how the hell could anyone with a brain and a conscience prosecute me for that?

Hooray for flawed analogies. The door was not wide open. Secured with a lock that can be opened with any key commonly found in a child's plastic handcuff kit sure, but still locked. Criminal trespass in almost all cases merely requires indication that the premise is not open to the public. I think a login/password would be sufficient indication.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293820)

No, the door was closed but unlocked. And why should he raise the alarm? He isn't getting paid for doing a security audit. And how is he to know that FOIA or similar is not appliccable? Maybe that is why the account is left open.

Meanwhile, what is happening to the admin of these machines? They have done the equivalent of goof off and get pissed as a handcart when they were supposed to be on duty. And IF the 9/11 issue is to come in to it at all, this would make it goofing off in hostile territory. This is a court-martial offence. Any leitennants getting the axe?

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist (1)

dissident_rockstar (969659) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294127)

These people? Way to generalize. Not everybody within the States is ignorant of these things either. We have many people, most of whom are idiots... just like every other country. Occasionally our government may go haywire are start pulling some shit; but whose government hasn't yet that's been around more than a century? Personally I think you can detect the growing resentment towards the frivolous attitude our President and his administration (not to mention the lawmaking side of things...) has taken towards our civil rights (and liberties, they ARE different) as reflected in his 38% approval rating. I didn't vote for him, but if he stays in office any longer than his prescribed term I'll be ready to throw down in arms, even in the face of a machine that emulates walking into a 500 degree oven.

MOD PARENT UP. (0, Redundant)

iogan (943605) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294168)

If it was someone from my country who did this, they'd have to pry him/her from my cold, dead hands before they could extradite that person. Whether or not this guy is an idiot is really not the issue. At all.

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist (1)

shotfeel (235240) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294349)

Harmless Nutter != Terrorist

True.

But how do you know he's only a "Harmless Nutter"? Because that's the way he's been presented?

And how does anyone know "!= a Terrorist" until the purpetrator is found and after an extensive investigation?

His actions are still costing money and causing problems for the US and UK alike. "Harmless"???

Re:Harmless Nutter != Terrorist (1)

PhraudulentOne (217867) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294408)

I fully agree with Attaturk.

so1o has some crazy ideas, but he's not an idiot. Just because he broke into some poorly secured computers does not mean he isn't a hacker. It doesn't mean he is not capable of breaking into well-secured boxes. I wouldn't want to be extradited to the US either. I don't trust the US Gov't *at all.* The time they are seeking is ridiculous. 70 yrs is insane. Either so1o did some things that aren't mentioned, or they are trying to make an example of him. If they are trying to set an example, then they should be put in jail for unfair and unjust treatment.

so1o is a nice guy, and I hate to see this happen to him. Yes, he committed a crime, so yes, I suppose he should be punished, but I don't think 70yrs in jail is going to help the situation at all. Perhaps the US Gov't should request that he works for them and helps them with their security - he doesn't deserve to be with rapists and murderers, as he is not a danger to the public. Fine him some realistic amount of money and ban him from internet access or something...

I just hope the UK can come up with a fair and just way of dealing with the situation - I'm pretty sure everyone knows that the USA cannot.

i was never asked for my opinion... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293594)

another question is, who is this "entire tech community" that is of one mind on any topic at all?

sounds like it could be related to those studies sponsored by "?company"

Don't misunderstand this. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15293624)

We fully support the prosecution and punishment of McKinnon, who is a self-confessed criminal and a notorious cracker.

What we do not support is his extradition to the United States of America; in the light of the USA's abysmal human rights record, openly xenophobic policies, and rampant corruption problems, we consider it highly implausible that he could receive a fair trial there. Furthermore, we reject US law as tending to cruel and draconian punishments, and we deplore the condition of US prisons, which Amnesty International ranks as among the most brutal and inhuman in the allegedly-civilised world.

McKinnon should be tried and imprisoned in the United Kingdom, which is where he was when he committed his crimes. It's as simple as that.

I can imagine why it's happening (3, Funny)

mustafap (452510) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293810)

Security Advisor: "Hackers got into our computers again sir"

Bush: "Damm it! Where did they get the technology to break our secret codes?"

Security Advisor: "Actually, we left the systems wide open. Our IT specialists are too lazy to set passwords"

Bush: "So how do we stop these sly foreign devils?"

Security Advisor: "Lets just grab one and stick him in jail for life. No one at home will care. It might put the rest off"

Bush: "Or we could train our guys to use password?"

Security Advisor: "You'r talking nonsense again, sir"

two different issues (1)

cecirdr (553580) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293918)

The summary posted said:

"in truth as we all know the entire tech community has agreed that Mr Mckinnon is not only an idiot but a deluded attention seeker.'"

---------

Condemming Mr McKinnon has nothing to do with how you feel about the trial. The article says the hacker community condems the *trial*. Being a "nutter" should have no bearing on how your trial is carried out.

Re:two different issues (1)

romrunning (963198) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294203)

"Condemming Mr McKinnon has nothing to do with how you feel about the trial. The article says the hacker community condems the *trial*. Being a "nutter" should have no bearing on how your trial is carried out."

Being a nutter does help with the mentally incompetent/criminally insane defense, however.

Queries (1)

berenixium (920883) | more than 7 years ago | (#15293982)

What if he's right?

And

What if he actually is sent down in The States to 70 years hard time, after being ejected from his home country? What portent will that hold for UK 'security-minded' computer enthusiasts in the future?

Re:Queries (1)

PhraudulentOne (217867) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294459)

What if he actually is sent down in The States to 70 years hard time, after being ejected from his home country?

The hackers of the world will unite and hack the planet - duh.

Fresh out of respect and sympathy (1)

EddyPearson (901263) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294315)

I live in the UK, I'm not so blasse as to call myself a Hacker, but I certainly stick to many hacker trends. When I first heard about this case, I did feel sorry for the guy, but after a little digging on the matter and having seen him in interview, I've lost all respect for him.
If for a second you take what he says to be true, you're left in a world where the US govenment is keeping the world poverty stricken, regularly airbrushing photo evidence of UFOs out of satelite images, has a cure for almost all known diseases (and doesn't use it) and develop weapons that make the AK47 look like a broken watergun. What is more the number of people who'd need to be involved in a conspiracy this big would be WELL into the thousands.
Ok, the US are bad, their policies are misguided and their president can barely string a sentance together, but fuck, this isn't Stargate SG1, its a pack of LIES.
Have fun in the US Gary.

Re:Fresh out of respect and sympathy (1)

Unski (821437) | more than 7 years ago | (#15294465)

If for a second you take what he says to be true, you're left in a world where the US govenment is keeping the world poverty stricken, regularly airbrushing photo evidence of UFOs out of satelite images, has a cure for almost all known diseases (and doesn't use it) and develop weapons that make the AK47 look like a broken watergun. What is more the number of people who'd need to be involved in a conspiracy this big would be WELL into the thousands.
I absolutely, sincerely and honestly have no problem envisaging those possibilities. I really don't. I don't think in the Information age, in 2006, that the things he describes sound that far-fetched. I totally think (if for one second we suppose there is truth) that it fits in with the current administrations M.O. that they could have free power and evidence of aliens and keep it all under wraps. Never under-estimate the power of greed and corruption in the US.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...