Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

UFO Hacker Reprieve?

The ongoing saga surrounding the extradition of British ‘UFO Hacker’ Gary McKinnon has taken another twist, with McKinnon being granted permission to take his case to the House of Lords:

Gary McKinnon was arrested in 2002 after US prosecutors charged him with illegally accessing government computers – including Pentagon, US army, navy and NASA systems – causing $700,000 worth of damage.

A district court ruled in May 2006 that he should be extradited, a decision upheld at London’s High Court in April this year. But on Monday, three of Britain’s top judges gave McKinnon permission to take his case to the House of Lords.

McKinnon’s lawyers argue that sending him to the US would breach his human rights, be an abuse of the English court process and should be barred as his extradition was sought “for the purpose of prosecuting him on account of his nationality or political opinions”.

McKinnon was definitely in the wrong, and an idiot if he thought this wasn’t going to come back and bite him. But I really don’t see his case as one that would warrant extradition…and I’d imagine he’s already lost ten years of his life through the pure stress of what has been happening. Perhaps it’s time for it all to go away?

Editor
  1. Crime and Punishment
    Though it may sound compassionate, in some circles, to “imagine” ten years of stress and just let it go at that, society must maintain order by enforcing laws and punishing wrong doers. Just letting it go sets a precedent that every lawyer and court would exploit for years to come. He undermined U.S. national security and, with Britain as the U.S.’s closest military ally, he undermined British security as well. If he can’t do the time he shouldn’t have committed the crime.

    1. yes, ok, but…
      As I wrote at UFO Mystic, if it was such a terrible crime, and the US wants to put this guy on the shadow for 70 years, then why is this story’s follow up relegated to the back pages of the newspapers, and mentioned briefly on some science and UFO-devoted blogs?

      The only thing this bloke is accountable for, is putting to shame the entire US government system, by demonstrating any moron with an above-average skill, can hack into the most sensitive network systems. Why? Because they didn’t have propper password codes and everybody could log in with an ADMIN account! This incident actually helped the US to be aware of the problem and see how exposed they were to the potential threats of more malevolent hackers.

      But we can see it for what this is. They want to make an example of the poor sap. Oh! if only he could have been of ARABIC descent at least!

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

      1. Any moron can walk into a
        Any moron can walk into a bank and rob it too, but that doesn’t negate the criminal’s accountability for breaking the law, negligent bank security or not.

        1. Who deserves more punishment?
          The guy who leaves the bank’s vault open, or the schmuk who goes there, enters unnoticed without carrying a gun, takes nothing from the vault, and then leaves?

          They want to make an example out of him. Fine. But 70 years in prison? Where’s the proof of that alleged US$700,000 worth of damage they accuse him of comitting?

          —–
          It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
          It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

          Red Pill Junkie

          1. Oh C’mon…
            Leaving the door open is stupid but not illegal. What he did was illegal. As to proof of damages or the amount of damages, that’s up to the prosecution to determine and can be a mitigating factor in his sentencing. But as a general rule, 70 years for undermining national security, potentially putting millions of lives in harm’s way, is a very just price to pay. If I were sentencing him, and he was guilty of something of that magnitude, it would be far worse.

          2. Scare tactics?
            [quote=red pill junkie]They want to make an example out of him. Fine. But 70 years in prison? Where’s the proof of that alleged US$700,000 worth of damage they accuse him of comitting?[/quote]

            Hi RPJ,

            I think the 70 years has been scare-mongering by McKinnon’s laywers more than anything. I very much doubt they would seek that sort of sentence (despite it being possible), due to the public outcry – especially in the UK – that would ensue.

            BTW, I emailed your registered email account (@gmail.com) with a query.

            Kind regards,
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

  2. $700,000
    I’ve seen some other claims of “damage” due to access and copying of files without permission. Most of the “damage” is man-hours necessary to fix the security problems that allowed the person to get in, and the monetary figure is grossly exaggerated. Such claims should not be directed at the invader, since the problem existed prior to the access and was not created by them, but rather was due to incompetence of the system administrators. Often, they also claim the files were “taken” when they were actually just copied, and claim that replacing them from backup cost a great deal of money.

    If operating these machines cost as much as these damage claims say, they’d require more than the entire budget of the agency involved just to keep them running.

    Having illegally accessed computers without permission does not make examination of the $700,000 claim moot. Doing so may well prove that the US is lying to UK about the situation, which would throw a spanner into the extradition proceedings.

    No, I am not the brain specialist…..
    YES. Yes I AM the brain specialist.

    1. Politics and the Law
      [quote=DynaSoar]Most of the “damage” is man-hours necessary to fix the security problems that allowed the person to get in, and the monetary figure is grossly exaggerated.[/quote]

      Actually, there are real costs associated with this type of security breach. Not knowing exactly what was accessed, or not knowing what was done with the information, either intentionally or unintentionally, means that procedures, methods, assets, tools, platforms, systems, etc. all have to be evaluated and often changed to avoid exploitation. Compromise must be assumed, so actions must be taken to mitigate that compromise. Depending on what he accessed, that figure of 700k could be grossly under estimated.

      Blaming the banker’s inability to keep his vault door secured, rather than blaming the robber (or trespasser), simply because you hate the banker and the bank, is just the wrong position to take. His incompetence should be addressed, but that’s another issue for another day and in no way should server as an excuse for crime or the criminal.

      1. Whoa Whoa! If for banker…
        If for banker you mean the US Government, and the bank the US then No, I do not hate them. I hate the way SOME part of the US government operates, like the way Michael Chertoff says “screw you” to the US Judicial system, when he decides to contravene a judicial order to stop the construction of a border wall that’s damaging the ecosystem at Naco Arizona.

        http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jE_bOUpQb6MxrxSQno3N6gEdY-MA

        But I digress…

        Is McKinnon a criminal? Yes. Is he a DANGEROUS criminal, or a terrorist even, now that the term is applied so freely nowadays? No.

        Does he deserve punishment for what he did? Most surely. Does he deserve to be extradited and treated like he commit a direct threat against the US National Security, spendng the better part of his life for a juvenile prank? Well, personally I don’t think so, but we’ll see what the british judicial system determines. Now that there has been a change in the english government, and they are addressing the mistake of involving themselves with their “allies” in the Iraq invasion, perhaps McKinnon will get lucky.

        But in the end Mckinnon is a fine example that, despite all the hassle for the so-called “war on terror”, the US is spending all their money efforts in the wrong fronts, fortifying their gates while leaving their backdoor opens. And no, with backdoors I don’t mean the Mexican border, I mean the maritime ports, the customs warehouses, their crucial infra-structues and energy installations, etc. Oh! and let’s not forget the levees too.

        McKinnon was a wake-up call that you’re still vulnerable in the places you least expect it to be. He’s an embarrassment, don’t make the mistake of making a MARTYR out of him.

        —–
        It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
        It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

        Red Pill Junkie

        1. Quote:
          don’t make the

          [quote]don’t make the mistake of making a MARTYR out of him.[/quote]

          I agree with most of that post. Except this part. That is not a valid excuse for not subjecting someone to prosecution and punishment.

          1. Ok
            Fair enough Anon 🙂

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

      2. More $700,000
        I don’t intend to counter the “bank vault” argument. He was wrong according to that argument and I agree with it.

        But as I said I’ve seen some of those estimates, some from US military sites I’ve caught intruders at. The “damage” estimates *are* grossly exaggerated, and many things called “damage” are not that. The statements are worded to make it look like the intruder caused damage when in fact none at all was caused. Detection of unsecured accessability due to intrusion is not damage, neither is copying of files.

        If McKinnon changed anything it could be considered damage. I assume he changed the access logs to hide his tracks (unsuccessfully it seems). Fixing that costs very little. I haven’t seen any information indicating he caused significant damage. He simply accessed files.

        It occurs to me that the US does consider the banker to be responsible for securing the “vault”. We have the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission to cover damages to bank users’ money should the banker’s security be compromised. The philosophical argument does not match reality.

        No, I am not the brain specialist…..
        YES. Yes I AM the brain specialist.

      3. White Hat Services
        [quote=Anonymous]Actually, there are real costs associated with this type of security breach. Not knowing exactly what was accessed, or not knowing what was done with the information, either intentionally or unintentionally, means that procedures, methods, assets, tools, platforms, systems, etc. all have to be evaluated and often changed to avoid exploitation. Compromise must be assumed, so actions must be taken to mitigate that compromise. Depending on what he accessed, that figure of 700k could be grossly under estimated. [/quote]

        Very true. Although by simply saying that $700K damage was caused, to the average punter it seems as if he trashed computers. I’m pretty sure that cost would actually be as you say – changes being made, security reviews etc (that is, people’s wages more than anything, rather than computer damage). And that’s a cost that companies regularly pay white hat hackers anyhow, to better prepare their systems for attack (and 700K, in today’s corporate world, is a drop of water vapour from a very large ocean…I know local companies just here in Brisbane spend 100K on weekend conferences).How much is one of those cruise missile things worth these days?

        The bank vault analogy I think is wrong. The openness of these systems was more akin to someone parking their car, leaving the keys in the ignition and the window down. And I don’t think we are blaming ‘the banker’ rather than the thief – I think most people agree that McKinnon was stupid, and did something wrong. Most people’s beef is with disproportionate reaction to a ‘crime’ which was basically enabled by unbelievably amateurish security measures (from an organisation that you would think would have the best security in the world) – and I think stealing the car would be a crime with more malice intended than what McKinnon did.

        Perhaps U.S. authorities (especially those in charge of the systems compromised by McKinnon) should thank their lucky stars it was his case that brought this inadequate security to light, rather than someone with a whole lot more malice.

        Maybe he should send a bill to the Pentagon for services rendered…
        ;P

        I should note, that I base my opinion on the facts as I have them – perhaps the U.S. authorities know something we don’t (ie. perhaps McKinnon has ties to a foreign intelligence service), and don’t want to reveal it until they get McKinnon back to their turf.

        Kind regards,
        Greg
        ——————————————-
        You monkeys only think you’re running things

          1. they still do
            but I think this is more “embarrassment” money and reaction then anything else.
            While there is secretes, there will be people who wish to know them. While there are firewalls there will always be people who wish to find a way through….astalavista.com……baby!

            “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
            LRF.

        1. Damages
          My point about the damages is that, with national security involved, you can’t simply slap up a new firewall, fire some I.T. guys an re-write some SOP manuals. An assumption must be made about a worse case scenerio and steps taken to mitigate that potential damage (whether real or not). For example, if a hacker got into the Pentegon’s systems and it looks like he MAY have accessed the file server where detailed information regarding Naval secure communications systems are stored, you must assume that that information is compromised. The cost isn’t just to secure the holes in the system and then call it good. You might have to actually change out the eletronics in every Navel ship and shore station, costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Hopefully nothing like that is in play here. A breach of U.S. national security is potentially a breach of every person’s security, in the U.S. as well as our Allies around the world (yes, that includes Australia).

          1. Military cost
            As an ex-military man I must point out the cost isn’t that great. Systems are continually being re-evaluated because it is THAT important. A case like this simply makes the re-evaluation more pertinent. But the money would have been spent anyway.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal