you'll be accused of being a bio-terrorist.

To these guys *everything* looks like a terrorist attack of some sort or the other. That's what they get paid (extremely well, both corporately and individually) to spot. Given such a huge vested interest and such a receptive governmental structure - who are using all this FUD to promote their own aims too, this is hardly a surprise. This big problem is that no-one is prepared, or in a position, to stand up and make them account for their claims, or the restrictions they impose. Questions like "how many deaths have you actually prevented?" or "Why did you claim a threat, when there wasn't any?" all get ducked under the excuse of security.

If there's one single lesson that should be taught in schools - every day, it's the story about the boy who cried "wolf!"

Ok, it's been said 1000 times already but if you leave your keys in your car or the front door unlocked then it's your own damn fault if someone takes advantage of it. Yes, he has broken the law but if this was a common theft the police would take down the details and do nothing but laugh at the stupidity of the victim. This should be dropped, he has done them a service by highlighting serious security failings, as to the $700000 for repairs, it proves they don't know shit and US tax payers are getting screwed for it.

No, thought not...

Could we add the current state of the 'anthrax letters' investigation to the related links please? Own goal, it appears.

Oh, and read Clifford Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg", it's a cracking yarn!

"Christie said. "It is a very significant intrusion case, because it reinforces the fact that a lone individual who is motivated can cause significant damage to the military preparedness of this country.""

That is a fact which is not disputed by anyone, In fact all electronic intrusion are, by the very nature of them coming from one keyboard, "lone" stumbles/searches.

"...coming so soon after 9/11, was serious enough to justify a huge investigative effort, particularly amid initial fears that it might have been the sponsored by a terrorist organisation. He acknowledged that the security of systems may not have been up to scratch, but said that this was besides the point."

"Besides the point" ...... a Lack of American Intelligence is besides the point, with them raising around like headless chicken looking for a terrorist organisation to blame on their lack of Secure Systems Programming with them suffering 911 and Anthrax attacks from forces trained at home. Do me a favour and do yourselves a favour, Mr Christie, Grow up and wake up and smell the Coffee, there's a good little chap.

""It [would] show him to be much more deliberate, methodical and vindictive than otherwise," said Christie. "I would imagine that the government is going to try to show that he's not this eccentric, but that he is using that as his cover story where his real motivation is attacking the government and the military because of US policies."

McKinnon faces a seven-count indictment in the US and claims that he caused damages estimated at $700,000. He disputes these damage assessments.

According to Christie, a major focus of the prosecution case will be to prove that McKinnon's attacks caused financial harm. “The government, through McKinnon's admissions, is halfway to the goal line but still has a ways to go," he said."

Financial harm a major focus for prosecution? Where then are all of Wall Street Darlings and Fat Cat Bankers whose Crooked Schemes have wiped off and will continue to wipe off Billions if not Trillions from the Markets and now who have a Serious Crisis of Confidence to Manipulate as their Game Crashes down around them and their Oily Friends? Or do they all get a Free Pass? Dream on, dude. To think that is acceptable would be deliberate, methodical and vindictive towards natural Justice and make a mockery of everything that America is supposed to represent.

Memo to NeoCons .... whom you will remember pulled down their own PNAC website site for the Wealth of Information it spilled about their very fascist plans and the Persons of Interest responsible ..... The Great Game has Changes. Get Used to ITs Lead and get with its NeuReal ProgramMIng.

Surely you can understand that Simple Text Message....... or do you want IT in Elementary Pictures too ..... http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Mastery-Level-Storybook-Rainbow/dp/0026863553/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_i

And what of "military preparedness of this country." today, I wonder. Is it any more advanced than it was before or is it still wide open to intrusion ..... because of the dirty secrets which the Administration is trying to Hide?

And Yes, there is a Fix for that, but it would most definitely be Alien to you, although do not use that as an excuse for Intelligence to Fail Again to Protect and Serve the Nation as you wage War with Terror rather than Engage in CyberIntelAIgents.

In God We Trust that is not ambiguous and/or difficult to understand. If you can't Lead Properly .....Just Follow AI Paths.

It says a lot about US government systems when they can only catch a UFO chaser from Blighty when they review their system security after realising they've been owned.

Regards looking like terrorism, given the weight governments attach to this word these days, surely they shouldn't use it in such a wishy-washy context.

The extradition should be fought as the Yanks can't be trusted to hand out a punishment that fits the crime, particularly if its handed over the the military. The "terrorism" link smacks of abuse of legislation, must like when that Walter fellow was thrown out of the Labour Party conference under terrorism acts.

You would have to know how much damage, etc., the other hackers caused before it can be determined if McKinnon is being targeted more than previous offenders. If you get in a bar fight and then flee the country, there's a good chance no one is going to seek extradition to bring you back. If you murder someone on the other hand...

Not everything the American government views as terrorism, there are a few exceptions-

1. IRA terrorists murdering British people.

2. Israelis murdering anyone they feel like who isn't Jewish.

3. Americans murdering anyone they feel like who isn't American.

4. Ex-Cubans murdering current Cubans.

Kuji was charged, along with "Datastream Cowboy" with conspiracy. Datastream Cowboy's legal team complained that he had not been treated properly by the police as a minor - some-one under the age of 17. He was then offered a deal - which he accepted - to plead to offences under s 1 Computer Misuse Act, 1990 (unauthorised access). He was fined 100ukp for each of 12 offences.

The Crown Prosecution Service then offered Kuji a similar deal. He refused, because his lawyer advised him that charges under s 1 had to be brought within 6 months of prosecutors being aware of the facts - and those 6 months had now been exceeded. The CPS then had to see if they were likely to be successful with a charge under s 3 Computer Misuse Act (unauthorised data modification). As this is a more serious charge, the 6 months limitation did not apply. But after a while the CPS realised that they were unlikely to succeed, and Kuji walked free.

There are good grounds for thinking that had the CPS gone for less ambitious charges in the first instance, they would have succeeded, but at some expense to the publicity value of the case, and perhaps some annoyance to the US "victims".

This is not the only occasion where hi-tech prosecutions have failed, or turned out to be very expensive (as in the DrinkorDie software piracy case) because the charges were over-ambitious.

The Kuji/Datastream Cowboy attack on USAF Rome Labs in 1994 must have been every bit as serious as anything Gary McKinnon is alleged to have done. There were hearings about it in the US Senate. But in 1994 folks were not quite so jittery about terrorism.

Isn't this actually an admission that they are prosecuting him based on incorrect information/assumptions then?

I thought it was Hitler but it was really a five year old... still gotta give em the chair though else we'd look stoopid.... Americanism as its most American methinks.

oooooo! Thoughtcrime!

I have to admit that I don't give a monkey's either way in this case.

Whatever his actual competence, his intent was still to hack into systems containing "Suppressed" (Or "Top Secret" as we say in the industry.) information. Anyone who expects "Them" not to care about this is either

1) So incompetent that their attempt will miss the mark by a mile

2) A complete cretin.

3) Has a hilarious faith in their own abilities.

On the other hand we have government systems that were inconvenienced by the above specemin.

Just send him on his way and hope that the court sentences both parties to death, I doubt either of them brings anything useful to the genepool.

Paris, godforbid she ever bring anything to the genepool

Well, maybe this WAS a terrorist attack in as much as they said "Ooooh! I'm frightened!!!" and then were in deathly fear of losing their jobs when their inconceivable incompetence was found out, ensuring that they were terrorised.

'course this only works if the merkins involved were yellow-bellied wankfests.

Got another one for you there Turbojerry

5. Friendly fire (now there's a misnomer if ever there was one!)

Also known as wanting to murder anyone who doesn't follow your ideals and not giving a flying fig who gets in the way, even your allies.

Mine's the one with the iPhone in the pocket with dictionary.com on the screen.

1. How precisely can you cause $700,000 of damage to a computer network like the pentagon whose security would presumably be unrivalled (leaving out the lack of any external CCTV cameras during 9/11 -_-)?

2. Conversely, why the hell is Naval Station Earle, which apparently is one of the US Navy's few Atlantic munitions replenishment docks be susceptible to 'damage' considering its strategic importance?

3. Gary McKinnon is a noob. I don't often use that word. Its far over used, but in this case ignoramus doesn't quite capture the idiocy of the subject. Why the hell would you be so stupid as to run the risk of antagonising the US govt during its highest overall threat level since 1962? Especially considering the sabre rattling supreme in its executive branch.

- Paris because even she isn't quite that stupid.

definitely, companies pay thousands for penetration testing and McKinnon did it for free

Anyone who things that people have a fundamental right to victimize based on a unusual opportuntity for an easy attack is seriously deranged.

You seriously think that anyone making a mistake deserves to be victimized?

If you were my neighbor we'd have problems. One of my friends forgets to lock his door when he goes to work and there is an old woman who leaves her kesy in her front door somethings.

I catch you in the act and the police will be laughing all right, but not at the victim.

.

"Ok, it's been said 1000 times already but if you leave your keys in your car or the front door unlocked then it's your own damn fault if someone takes advantage of it."

And 1,001 times this cretinous argument has been contradicted. Unlocked doors are not an invitation to walk in; I don't have a sign outside my house saying "please enter". When I leave my home, locked or unlocked, I don't expect to discover uninvited visitors on my return. The decison to enter my home against my will is that of the culprit; the ease with which illegal entrance is achieved is morally irrelevant.

Check out the Disclosure Project video, if you have not already seen it. It discusses some other interesting possibilities. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6552475158249898710&ei=-V2dSMi5JYOGwgPQ8ICMDQ&hl=en

So already been dwarfed by the lawyers fees then...

Oops. It only works one way. Sorry I forgot.

You seem to be mistaking freedom fighters for terrorists. An easy mistake to make.

"Christie said. 'It is a very significant intrusion case, because it reinforces the fact that a lone individual who is motivated can cause significant damage to the military preparedness of this country.'"

Ah, the old purloined letter, hiding the truth right out in the open. I agree with this 100% -- but the problem isn't that this hacker is so evil, the problem is your security is pants. This reinforces the fact that your network is wide open to any bored script kiddie with some time on his hands.

"He acknowledged that the security of systems may not have been up to scratch, but said that this was besides the point."

*snerk* Hah hah hah! No, it IS the point. You're trying to deflect our attention from the real problem, which is not this poor schmuck, but the fact that our wonderful expensive military is either too cheap or too stupid -- probably too cheap AND too stupid -- to set up a properly secured network. Instead of saying "Oops, we've screwed up, time to fix things" you try to lay the blame at the feet of the first guy caught in the spotlight.

MUCH easier to shoot the messenger than solve the problem.

I would clutch at every available straw to avoid facing charges of terrorism infront of the US military.

If he did leave a silly note it only shows he has sufficient mental incompetence to believe the US government are capable of hushing up contact with aliens. If the US was involved in a giant cover-up, it would on all the news outside the US and they would make a movie about it for he US market.

$700,000 to train the 97 most computer illiterate soldiers in the US to remember a secure password? A bargain price, but I do not see why McKinnon should have to pay it. The US has lots of soldiers. There must be plenty capable of remembering a password. Who selected those 97 for vital defence computer work?

I am sure real terrorists are cowering in fear at this message from the US: "Don't mess with us or our lawyers will hound someone else!"

Paris for president!

It is amazing to me, that people do not believe that a theft / crime has occurred (and all logic seems to go out the window), if it was done from behind a keyboard.

Unless of course, it is a spammer. A spammer can murder/suicide their family, or get a 10+ yr sentence basically for annoying people. While people here and elsewhere generally applaud the end results. What "real" harm has a spammer caused YOU, that should result in a 10 yr sentence or the death of their children?

Spam

Spammer sends spam for extended period of time. Spammer sends you emails that say "i send you spams, because you are a sucker and you deserve it". Spammer caught.

Spammer defense:

I did it, but just for fun. I didn't mean to upset you.

Well, other people have sent you spam too.

Your email server let me send you mail. As a matter of fact, anyone can send you mail. So you sort of deserve it.

My deliberate sending of spam directly to you doesn't count, because others could (and have) sent you spam. So you can plainly see that the criminal charge is not fair to me, the spammer. It is only the result of poor timing, and my unfortunate capture.

homeless man assault

Worldwide news report of a group of people beating a homeless man to death in NYC. During the report, the same group shows up and beats another homeless person to death. In the same spot, on live TV.

A week later you travel to NYC from far away, and are caught on video kicking a homeless guy. But not identified. Over the next several months, you are caught on video kicking dozens of homeless people. Not just in NYC, but in Boston, D.C., and Miami too.

You are aware of the video, but feel righteous. You write a letter to NY times stating "there was a reason those filthy bums were killed, I am BOOT, I will continue to stomp". Then you are caught.

Your defense:

I think that homeless people are secretly rich. I was not trying to hurt them or kick their body. I was just trying to kick their pants pocket, to make all of their money fly out.

I kicked them, but I saw other people kick them too.

They are just lying there in the street. Any person walking by would have been able to kick them. So they are sort of asking for it.

My timing and taunting? Coincidence. I just believe that the homeless are rich and am out to prove it. That's all. Yes I am aware that the homeless exist in every country in the world, and if they are secretly rich, they would be secretly rich in other countries too. I am aware that I could have tried to prove my theory on the local homeless or the homeless in Russia, China or France. But i feel that the U.S. homeless are a special kind of rich, so i wanted to prove my theory on the U.S. homeless.

--

When the hell did "well, it's not impossible.." replace "it's probable" in reasonable doubt / thinking?

Is this guy wealth, or just a political cause? This extended defense has to be costing a bundle.

My main concern on this issue revolves around the question, Is he telling the Truth? Seems to me , that the US Gov. is after him to force him to rescind his previous comments about what he saw, he says he saw evidence involving UFOs and Anti-Gravity technology, both items happen to be at the core of the most highly classified and compartmentalized secret programs being guarded by the US. The deal the US authorities have offered appear to be quite fair, but I'll wager you a hefty sum that part of any deal will include immediate cooperation from Gary with regards to the top secret information he has "leaked", to the media. His admission that he was using Marijuana during his exploits is tailor made for countering his damaging assertions. A statement by Mr. McKinnon explaining that he did not actually see any of the items claimed, in conjunction with any plea deal will serve as evidence of this theory. He says he did not download any images because they were embedded, but someone of his skill level can capture any images present on his computer monitor. The knowledge of these systems would benefit Humanity, the US will conceal and weaponize any such technologies, the free countries on the other hand would more likely develop the resources for the benefit of the world. By allowing Gary to be extradited, the UK is allowing the Corporate controlled US industrial complex to further their unsavory goals.

Perhaps there are no such technologies, but it all boils down to one question, "Is he telling the Truth?"

I live in the States, I have some idea of what my Government is capable of.

"US foreign policy is akin to government-sponsored terrorism these days.... It was not a mistake that there was a huge security stand down on September 11 last year.... I am SOLO. I will continue to disrupt at the highest levels."

This is damning only in an USA court, everywhere else it is a statement of fact. W has killed more innocents than Bin Laden ever will.

When did Blair sign away our laws legitamacy to Washington ? It is time for a Boston tea-party in reverse.

...like on https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3231674 and McKinnon had read it too...

Yes, it would be my fault and my insurer won't pay out. But I would expect the police to arrest the guilty party, nonetheless.

What is relevant is that any organization should think that they can have critical systems secure whilst being available on the internet. Fucktards is too kind a word for them.

Efros

"and they would make a movie about it for he US market." .... By Flocke Kroes

Posted Sunday 10th August 2008 06:16 GMT

Hush Hush Scripting Work in Progress for the Global Blockbuster Market, Flocke Kroes.

Ok, if they're just script kiddies then they're not much use. But seriously, the best people to help you secure systems are often those who know how to break into them.

You do have to be careful however that they truly are reformed characters. Locking these people up just begins their life as a criminal.

Many years ago in the before apache, there was a very simple way to get certain web servers to lose memory - given the small amount of memory you could DOS a system in a matter of minutes.

I was then asked by someone at a .mil email address to prove my assertionby running my perl4 script against his web server. I agreed if he could provide written permission. I never heard from him after that.

These days even if he gave me written permission, I would have to decline.

Jacqui

I'm not certain if its retrospective but...

ARTICLE 4

Political and Military Offenses

1. Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a

political offense.

I think a strong case could be made for this being a Political offence ;)

But you'd still have to be a complete idiot to leave your front door open when your not in/key in the ignition etc.

If you truly believe that "this cretinous argument" has no bearing, perhaps you'd like to put it to the test, leave your house door open and post your address on here?

No? I didn't think so.

The point is.....well that you've completely missed the point of "this cretinous argument". It's not about the morality of whether you should or shouldn't hack into a system, it's the fact that there is always somebody willing to hack a system (or likewise rob your house) if you make it easy for them......so if you DO choose to make it easy for them then you kinda have it coming.

As for McKinnon, well to be honest I couldn't give a toss what happens to him, but as he never set foot on U.S. soil while committing the offence, it seems to make sense that he should be tried here. If he does get extradited, it would set a dangerous precedent for anyone caught filesharing for example.

"a major focus of the prosecution case will be to prove that McKinnon's attacks caused financial harm"

er, how much has been spent on the prosecution case? it must be more than 700K. presumably they will now prosecute themselves also.

Did he really think he could get away with hacking into the us military?

And nothing was taken. So it's more like "you left your front door open and someone walked in". The US DoD is doing the international equivalent of blowing his brains out for walking in and "trespassing".

PS Does this mean that if I copy a file from AllOfMP3 in Russia where they have a license to make the copy, this is now legal since the transaction took place in Russia???

A crime has not occurred.

At the time it was done, there was no crime in the UK. It was done IN the UK and should be tried IN the UK.

Nothing has been stolen.

Now if you're going to say "but the computer was in the US", so what? *I* am guilty of copyright infringement in my country when I copy the latest Britney (I'll have to work on someone else 'cos I don't think she's producing anything any more). So the US government think it to be a crime done where the person enacting is residing at the time.

I find it odd that you assign theft and criminal acts to be taken place just because the US government says it has.

And it's been repeated 1,002 times that the internet is not like your house. The internet is by default a public place.

And if you have the woodcutters shed but no notice that says "KEEP OUT" then when someone walks into the woodcutters shed and sees bestial porn mags in the desk you can't turn around and claim trespass to silence the person who found them.

Internet != Home.

Firstly I must say:

s/reinforces the fact that a lone individual who is motivated can cause significant damage to the military preparedness of this country/our network is so insecure that anyone who wants to can get in/

Second: The guy was in the UK. He was using a computer in the UK. He should be tried in the UK.

That the US are trying to extradite him is tantermount to saying "Our law is best, everyone should follow our law". That the courts in this country are allowing the extradition is like them saying they agree with that viewpoint. We truely have become just another US State :'(

This would set a dangerous precedent, and should have been quashed. The first judge involved should have laughed in the face of the lawyer bringing the extradition request, long and loud, tried to recover composure, then laughed some more.

The WRT the "leaving the door unlocked" argument: The internet is a public place. This is more like leaving your mobile on a bench in a public park. Yes, the person is still guilty of theft if they take it, but it is your own bloody stupid fault for leaving it there.

In fact, as he did not actually take anything, this would be more like him picking up said mobile, having a look through your contacts, pictures, text messages etc. to see if there was anything interesting. Then he left a note in your inbox calling you names, put it back on the bench, and left. This is also illegal, but the cops would probably laugh at you if you wanted them to do anything about it...

Those tarty US servers shouldn't have been wearing short skirts - they were asking for it, and, buy all accounts, they loved it.

The contributory negligence argument only works if you create an allegory to fit - In this case, it is more akin to having your front door closed, bolted and padlocked, with a sign on it saying "trespassers will be extradited", and the burglar took advantage of a window opening trick to gain entrance.

Irrespective of McKinnon's physical location, the crime was committed on and against US sovereign territory.

The issue is not whether he committed a crime, but that he is being extradited with (as far as I know) no presentation of prima facie evidence, on the basis of a unilaterally biased extradition treaty, to a state that has time and again demonstrated a lack of integrity in it's legal process when the terrorism card is played.

Nope, your allegory is incorrect.

There was no lock. There was no door. There was no sign. They *may* have been running Windows.

Irrespective of where he was? Well, if someone in Saudi Arabia gets to the Men Only website, then Raymond publishing are guilty. The crime was committed in the location the hacker was in. This is why US security attempts to hack into other countries data is not illegal: they were cracking from the US soil where they are allowed.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true, you know.

The US is an idiot. Did they really think that a blank password would keep ANYONE out?

Gary should have just waited. It's clear that we're being slowly conditioned to alien life, what with NASA's daily Mars bulletins. I reckon we'll be told the truth by Xmas.

Sorry, no sympathy for this man. Yes the yanks appear to be throwing the book rather hard, but then that is their way in a post-9/11 world.

Bottom line - be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions, or don't do it in the first case. Hacking was clearly an offence when this guy went alien-hunting, he should have thought about what he was doing and the concequences of getting caught.

In this day and age, hacking US computers from a UK network, the chances of being caught are probably something greater than 99%...

I'm sure I don't need to provide much evidence to prove to you that not one single branch of the US administration entirely trusts any of the other branches. Therefore, given that so many people think that the Airforce / NASA / whoever are covering up advanced technology, why is it so hard to believe that other agencies would be investigating the veracity of these reports? The files may all say 'No evidence found' but you can bet your bottom dollar that _every_ agency has some files on UFO reports.

@ Andy Worth:

"As for McKinnon, well to be honest I couldn't give a toss what happens to him, but as he never set foot on U.S. soil while committing the offence, it seems to make sense that he should be tried here. If he does get extradited, it would set a dangerous precedent for anyone caught filesharing for example."

FWIW, the EU take the view that "consultancy" and other electronic services are performed in the location of the customer for VAT purposes; if I work from the UK for a German client, I do not levy VAT in the UK - instead, the client is responsible for paying the VAT to their own VAT authorities.

Granted, I doubt the US are going to embrace the defintion of him as a consultant performing a service for them, and equally they're outside of the scope of EU VAT legislation anyway... but UK and EU law has long since accepted that where you are when you work is NOT the determinant of where the "work" is deemed to be carried out.

I'd be very surprised if the US' legal team don't make the point that as the EU would consider his actions to have been performed in the US if he'd been charging for them, it's only reasonable to consider that they were performed in the US in this instance, and that therefore US law and US jurisdiction should apply.

Also, the guy seems like a paranoid, delusional, UFO-crazed retard. Surely the US is the best place for him? :)

Kev

"FWIW, the EU take the view that "consultancy" and other electronic services are performed in the location of the customer for VAT purposes"

What about the US? And as you pointed out and then, inexplicably discarded, I doubt he was working for the US...

He didn't commit the crime, however.

It was not a crime in the UK where he operated at the time he did it.

So if you did not do the crime, you don't do the time.

Computer Misuse Act 1990.

I started re-writing that paragraph, got distracted, and then hit send without re-reading. Doh. :) The US, being outside the EU, isn't subject to VAT at all. The VAT treatment is identical - it's not charged, because the service is outside of the EU. The reason for mentioning the rest of the EU was to make the point that even where EU taxation *does* apply, the place that the worker is located is largely considered irrelevant for considering where the work is carried out.

I'd think "the European Union considers this outside the scope of its taxation jurisdiction" would give a powerful element of persuasion to the argument that the US should be allowed jurisdiction.

The US position on the "location of performance" for services such as electronic consultancy isn't something I know much about (not being a US-based company performing services to non-US customers, I've never had to look it up) but it's not really relevant; the US government is arguing that the EU should allow them to extradite, not that their own law gives them the right to. Nowhere (to my knowledge) has McKinnon's team asserted that the US do not have the right under their *own* laws to extradite him.

As for the working-vs-not argument, there are instances where work for hire is treated differently than "work for free" (whether it's desired by the recipient or not), most notably in terms of employment law, health and safety law and other statutes and acts which establish fiduciary responsibility. Otherwise, I'd think it reasonable to suggest that the same treatment should be applied regardless of whether the performance is in exchange of consideration or otherwise, and would expect the US to argue likewise.

In response to your other post, that it's "not a crime in the UK" is not my understanding. Our laws aren't particularly great on the subject of unauthorised access to computer systems, whether data is modified or not, but we've had laws against intercepting communications for decades which have been used to enforce network boundaries in the courts. And, regardless of where he is at the time, the system he was working on resided physically in the US.

To put it another way... what if he was a telecommuter, working for a UK bank, servicing your personal account, and appropriated all your money for his own pocket - but did so from a country in which the offence of theft requires the *physical* removal of an item rather than simply depriving you of it. Would you say his actions were lawful because where *he* was, they aren't banned by statute... or would you say they're illegal because he's working for a UK bank and in THAT jurisdiction it's unlawful? For me, it's the latter every time. I work remotely a lot, mostly from Egypt... and I certainly expect to be held accountable to the legal framework of my clients rather than the warm and sunny country I choose to sit in while doing the work.

Kev

If the bank had put no password on my account (unbeknownst to me because I always HOPE to get the password right, and my money was taken, I WOULD SUE THE BANK.

Now, McKinnon didn't hack into any computer. He did no damage. He stole nothing. He did no crime.

Repeating that he did the crime does not make it true.

So why did the prosecutors in the UK not take him on that?

The quote from McKinnon proves two things, which some of you are still ignoring.

1. He uttered a clear threat. He announced his intent to do the maximum possible damage to the U. S. Military, and he indicated that this action was to be a response to a real prior attack, thus allying himself with the perpetrators of that attack. That part is all on the record. It's why the article says the quote already does half the prosecutions work for them - it's that indicative of guilt that the case would be essentially open and shut before any reasonable jury in your country or mine.

2. He is now lying through his teeth about just being there to look for U.F.O.s.

So, when this first came up, I was curious. I looked for the published files about the case.

It seems that, amongst other things, McKinnon is being charged because (despite how easy it was) he gained access to information that the US Military had taken action to secure from the public.

Reasonable enough.

So how am I a terrorist?

Well, the document I was reading included the IP addresses of some computers that McKinnon accessed. But the addresses had been blocked out with a black box - obviously information they intended to secure. I wondered how secure it really was. I copied the text (ctrl+a to select it all, ctrl+c to copy it) - opened nopepad, and pasted the text (ctrl+v)

There were the IP addresses, clear as day. Oops. Looks like I bypassed some of their (admittedly feeble) security. Looks like I am guilty of terrorism, too.

Now, I have an inkling of how McKinnon got in. I now have a list of IP addresses that were previously vulnerable. Makes me want to test them, to see if either I'm right about my guesses, and whether anyone has bothered to actually secure the computers. I wouldn't have done anything bad (maybe poked around just from curiosity then left.)

I never tested this, since I'm assuming the hole would have been plugged (if it's what I'm thinking, it'd be plugged pretty easily)

Anyway... yeah... hopefully this story goes some way to showing that we can't compare apples and oranges. A lack of security on the internet *can* be seen as an invitation.

I could have been copying/pasting that information for legitimate reasons and expecting the censored information to be missing. Or I could have been doing exactly what I did, and knowingly searched for a way around their security - but when security is so lax...

... ugh. It's like putting a "do not steal" sign up on a shopfront then hoping.

Except that's not really the right metaphor. Unless something was damaged... it's like putting a "do not peek" sign on a mostly-closed door. Then filing charges of industrial espionage against someone walking past, who looks through the door.

Leaving a door unlocked does not give anyone the legal or moral right to steal your things. It doesn't even give them the legal or moral right to walk through the door. But in a building where people *do* have the right to walk around (say, a university) - leaving a door unlocked still doesn't give people the legal right to walk in, but it hardly seems like an extreme case if they do. There are many students who'll walk into an unlocked room, sit down quietly, and do their study. Should we sue them for trespass?

For me? I don't want to hurt anyone. I don't want to damage anything. I don't want to steal anything. I *do* have a sense of curiosity, and I love understanding how things work. I love to read unusual spam mails and try to figure out what the con is. I love to calculate how best to count cards in a game of blackjack (but have never considered doing so in a casino where I can profit from cheating). And I love making computers do things they weren't intended to. It's a game. I stay on the legal side (working in IT, I have many systems that I'm the administrator of, so I can hunt out these weaknesses as a productive way of improving our systems)

Now, don't get me wrong. I am entirely against criminals. I am entirely against people who use computers to "bully" others. I truly, passionately HATE all the trojans and email scams that play on the users ignorance. But any large company? They should have at least one competent IT person who can secure their system. If they don't? They should hire someone to look it over and give advice. Because, although an unlocked door isn't an excuse for thieves to take things from your house, we don't see companies that leave their warehouses unlocked all night.

Let's switch this around, and remove computers and "the internet" from the discussion (since people overreact about any crime involving computers). Imagine if the US left their weapon stores locked (but only with a locker padlock, which can be picked using a paperclip) and McKinnon walked in looking for alien technology. And saw all their missiles, torpedoes, nuclear bombs, and who knows what else?

Yeah, he'd be breaking the law, but who would we be outraged at?

And if they said it cost $700,000 to fix his damage (if he didn't take anything. They just spent that much investigating what happened, putting in new locks, etc.) - would we be more or less skeptical of their case?

Dead vulture for a culture that is crushing our sense of exploration and wonder.

... looked for all the world like a terrorist ...

"...not one single branch of the US administration entirely trusts any of the other branches... ...you can bet your bottom dollar that _every_ agency has some files on UFO reports."

So every branch of the US administration has a niggling doubt at the back of their collective minds that the other branches may be fibbing about knowing nothing about UFOs and in a worst case scenario are either in hock to the little grey dudes or have been replaced by shape-changing alien lizardmen?!??

Bloody hell, I thought I'd worked in offices with a bit of interdepartmental tension but that takes the biscuit =)